1 2025:CGHC:56039-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 209 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khursipar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus Saiyyad Mohammad Shamsher S/o Saiyeed Mohd. Parwej, Aged About 23 Years R/o Infront Of Shershah Dharoda, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas, Bihar, Hal Mukam Ward 31, Kenal Road, Tiranga Nagar, P.S. Khursipar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Aman Tamrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 18/11/2025 1. The appellant-State has filed this acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) of the CrPC against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No.57/2021, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 364 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 and 302 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused, Saiyyad Mohammad Shamsher, was a friend of the deceased’s father, Mehraj Shah. For the past about three months, accused Shamsher had been visiting Mehraj’s house regularly. Mehraj worked as a helper on a truck. Accused Shamsher developed an illicit relationship with Mehraj’s wife, Shabana Khatoon (PW-4). They wished to marry each other. When Shabana Khatoon informed her husband Mehraj Shah about this, it was mutually decided that their elder daughter would stay with Mehraj Shah and their two-year-old son, Aamir Shah, would stay with his mother, Shabana Khatoon. Accused Mohammad Shamsher, however, was not willing to keep the two-year-old child Aamir Shah with them. On 26.03.2020, in the morning, accused Shamsher beat Aamir Shah in the courtyard in front of the house and even lifted him to throw him on the ground. At that time, Shabana Khatoon (PW-4) held the child in her arms and the neighbours also scolded the accused/respondent. 3. Further, the prosecution case is that on 27.03.2020, at around 06:00–06:30 A.M., Shabana Khatoon (PW-4) seated her two- year-old son Aamir Shah near the door and gave him biscuits to eat, after which she began washing utensils. At around 7:00 A.M., she noticed that Aamir Shah was not there. She then enquired in the neighbourhood and informed her brother, Mohammad 3 Naseem Shah @ Bablu (PW-1). Both of them searched for Aamir Shah. Accused Shamsher took the complainant into a room and said, “make tea for him, he will go and look for Aamir Shah.” After drinking the tea, he left, supposedly to search for the child. Shabana Khatoon (PW-4) became suspicious of accused Mohammad Shamsher. She expressed her suspicion and lodged a report with the police, upon which FIR (Ex. P-15) was registered and a search was conducted. A site map of the complainant’s house (Ex. P-16) was prepared. Since suspicion was expressed against accused Syed Mohammad Shamsher, efforts were made to trace him. He was found trying to flee with a black bag. The police apprehended him at Hathkhoj Pulia, Transport Nagar, and upon questioning, he confessed to killing Aamir Shah. Memorandum statement of the accused / respondent was recorded vide Ex.P-6 and on his disclosure, the dead body of Aamir Shah was recovered from the room of Santosh Belma (PW-2) and his wife Mohini Belma (PW-3), concealed behind an upright cot, and a recovery memo (Ex.P-7) was prepared. At the instance of the accused, the copper wire used in the commission of the offence was seized and a seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. His passport, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and marksheet were seized and Ex. P-8 was prepared. A full-sleeve T-shirt used to cover the body was seized from the accused and Ex. P-10 was prepared. On the information given by Mohini Belma, a zero- number Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex. P-12) was registered. A spot 4 map (Ex. P-13) was prepared. The information regarding actual, unusual, and accidental death was registered as Ex. P-19. The FSL Mobile Unit of Durg Range inspected the spot and issued a report (Ex. P-20). The postmortem of the body was conducted by Dr.Manju Rathore (PW-9) vide Ex.P-21 and opined that cause of death was due to damage of vital organs – rupture of trachea and rupture of left lung. The deceased’s clothes were seized. A map was prepared by the Patwari, statements of witnesses were recorded. 4. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who in turn committed the case to the Court of the Sessions, Durg for trial in accordance with law. 5. Charges were framed against the accused / respondent under Sections 364 and 302 of the IPC of the IPC, which were read over and explained to him. The accused denied the charges. His statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he claimed to be innocent and alleged false implication. The accused did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. The accused- respondent examined none in his defence nor any document has been exhibited in support of his case. 5 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.12.2022, acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of the IPC of the IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 8. Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State, submits that though the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court nevertheless has wide powers to re-appreciate the evidence. He argues that it is a settled principle of law that if, upon reappraisal of evidence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court appears unjust or perverse, the appellate Court is empowered to set it aside and reverse the judgment, convicting the accused/respondent appropriately. He further submits that the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent of the offences charged. According to him, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the conduct of the respondent, clearly demonstrate his ill-intention, and therefore he ought to have been convicted by the trial Court. He contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the police had registered the offence under appropriate sections of the IPC and that the prosecution had attempted to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. For this purpose, several witnesses were examined, and their statements fully supported the prosecution case. After considering the ingredients of the relevant IPC sections, it is evident that there 6 was intention on the part of the accused to cause death. However, the trial Court failed to consider the applicability of these sections while deciding the matter. He further contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material available on record and also failed to consider the intention of the accused while passing the judgment of acquittal. He argues that all the witnesses examined before the trial Court supported the prosecution version and established the case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the trial Court acquitted the accused by giving undue benefit of doubt. He submits that, on the date of the incident, the injury inflicted by the accused was not simple but grievous, caused with the intention to kill, and therefore the offence under the relevant sections of the IPC was clearly made out. Despite this, the trial Court failed to appreciate the same. Accordingly, it is argued that the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused/respondent deserves to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 9. On the other hand, Mr.Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that the trial Court after considering the material available on record has acquitted the respondent, which warrants no interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and record of the 7 trial Court. 11. The question for consideration is whether learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent despite the presence of the testimony of witness Santosh Belma (PW-2) along with other material evidence available on record. 12. This is the appeal against the judgment of acquittal filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate Courts are required to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box and also required to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonably person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 13. The Supreme Court in C.Antony v. Raghavan Nair1, has held that unless the High Court arrives at definite conclusion that the findings recorded by trial Court are perverse, it would not substitute its own view on a totally different perspective. 14. The Supreme Court in Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha2 has held that the appellate Court in considering the appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned 1 AIR 2003 SC 182 2 AIR 2004 SC 1053 8 judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 15. The scope of interference in appeal against the judgment of acquittal is well settled. In Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab3, the Supreme Court has held in para 6 as under:- “6.……….the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere within an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.” 16. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal the High Courts or the appellate Courts are fully 3 AIR 1987 SC 1083 9 empowered to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court is required to discuss the grounds given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. 17. In the light of aforesaid dictum and proposition of law, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 18. Santosh Belma (PW-2) in para 2 of his evidence has stated that the incident occurred during the first lockdown last year; he do not remember the exact date today. On the date of the incident, at around 2 P.M., he had come home for lunch. At that time, his wife, Smt. Mohini Belma, told him that the police had come to their house for a search. She told him that when she went to clean her father’s room, she saw the body of a child lying there. His father’s room and the room rented out to accused, Syed Mohammad Shamsher, are adjacent to each other. In para 5 of his evidence, he has stated that in his presence, the police seized the accused’s passport and Aadhaar card, which were produced after being taken out from the rented room of the accused Syed Mohammad Shamsher. The seizure memo is Ex. P-08, and he has signed part A to A of that memo. The police, at the instance of accused Syed Mohammad Shamsher, seized a red-coloured copper wire from the road in front of their house located at Canal Road, Tiranga Nagar. The wire was produced by the accused 10 after it was taken out from the spot, and the seizure memo is Ex. P-9. 19. Shabana Khatun (PW-4) (mother of the deceased) who lodged the FIR has stated in para 1 of her evidence that she know accused, Syed Mohammad Shamsher, who is present in the Court today. At the time of the incident, she was living in a rented house at Teldhani Naka, Zone 03, Khursipar, Bhilai, along with her husband, Mehraj Shah, and their two children. She has two children; one son named Aamir Shah and one daughter named Salma Khatoon. The incident occurred approximately two years ago. Accused, Syed Mohammad Shamsher, used to frequently visit their house and would tell her that he wanted to marry me. She informed her husband about this, to which he said that the accused was merely talking without meaning anything serious. The accused also used to threaten that he would kill her child. In para 2 of her evidence, she has stated that on the date of the incident, at around 6–7 A.M., when she woke up, she saw that her son Aamir Shah, who had been sleeping beside her on the bed, was not there. She then informed her brother, Bablu @ Naseem Shah, that Aamir Shah was missing. They searched for Aamir Shah in the nearby area. Accused, Syed Mohammad Shamsher, also started looking for him. Accused, Syed Mohammad Shamsher, was also living in a rented room in their neighbourhood. Her son Aamir Shah’s dead body was found in 11 that same house, inside the room of Syed Mohammad Shamsher, wrapped in cloth and hidden behind the cot. 20. Memorandum statement of the accused / respondent was recorded on 27.03.2020 at 15.10 P.M. vide Ex.P-6 in which Santosh Belma has signed as witness and on the basis of his memorandum statement, dead body of deceased Amir Shah was recovered vide recovery panchnama (Ex.P-7) on the pointing out of the accused / respondent from the bed lying on the floor in the room of Smt. Mohani Belma and as per postmortem report (Ex.P-21) cause of death was due to damage of vital organs – rupture of trachea & rupture of left lung and as per evidence of Santosh Belma (PW-2), his father’s room and the room rented out to accused, Syed Mohammad Shamsher, are adjacent to each other and named FIR has been lodged by Shabana Khatun, mother of the deceased. 21. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, examined the entire evidence on record, and evaluated the impugned judgment in light of the settled principles governing appeal against acquittal, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by learned trial Court are wholly unsustainable. 22.The trial Court failed to properly appreciate the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution, which form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused/respondent, Syed Mohammad Shamsher. The most 12 material of these circumstances is the recovery of the dead body of the two-year-old child, Aamir Shah, at the instance of the accused, from the room adjacent to his own, which belonged to PW-2 Santosh Belma’s father. The recovery was made pursuant to the memorandum statement (Ex. P-6) of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and is further corroborated by the recovery panchnama (Ex.P-7). This circumstance is highly incriminating and was wrongly disregarded by the trial Court. 23. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala4 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence. 24.PW-4, Shabana Khatoon, mother of the deceased and the informant, has given a clear and consistent account of the accused’s prior conduct—his illicit relationship with her, his threats to kill the child, and his suspicious behaviour on the date 4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 13 of the incident. Her testimony is natural, reliable, and fully corroborated by the subsequent recovery of the dead body from the premises connected with the accused. The trial Court erred in discarding her evidence on flimsy grounds. 25.PW-2, Santosh Belma, has categorically stated that the body of the deceased child was found in the room adjacent to that of the accused. His testimony remains unshaken and lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case. 26.The medical evidence also fully supports the prosecution case. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P-21), the cause of death was rupture of the trachea and rupture of the left lung injuries that are homicidal in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. These injuries rule out any possibility of accidental or natural death. The medical evidence aligns consistently with the prosecution version and the recovery of the body. 27.The circumstances proved by the prosecution—(i) motive arising from the illicit relationship, (ii) threat extended by the accused / respondent to kill the child, (iii) suspicious conduct of the accused / respondent on the date of the incident, (iv) recovery of the body at the instance of the accused / respondent and (v) corroborative medical evidence form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion that the accused / respondent is the 14 perpetrator of the crime. No other hypothesis consistent with innocence is possible. 28.The view taken by the trial Court is neither plausible nor reasonable. It is contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from manifest illegalities, resulting in a perverse acquittal. As held in Ramanand Yadav (supra) and Tota Singh (supra), interference is warranted when the acquittal is perverse and based on misappreciation of the evidence. The present case is a clear example where compelling and substantial reasons exist for reversing the acquittal. 29.In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 57/2021 is therefore liable to be set aside. 30.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the State under Section 378(1) CrPC is allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 57/2021 is set aside. Accused/respondent, Saiyyad Mohammad Shamsher is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 15 31.It is stated that the accused / respondent is in jail, he shall serve the sentence as ordered by this Court. 32.Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu