1 2025:CGHC:56514-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 363 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bakarkatta, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Jaisingh @ Balla Netam S/o Birsingh Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dariyakona, Police Station Bakarkatta, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/ Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate appears along with Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 20/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.08/2016, whereby, the respondent-Jaisingh @ Balla ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.11.21 11:11:45 +0530 2 Netam, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 364, 148, 302/145 and 302/120-B of IPC and also under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2015 at 11:45 am, a merg intimation (Ex.P/17) was lodged by one Indal Yadav before the Police Station-Bakarkatta of District-Rajnandgaon, informing that the dead bodies of his son namely, Manish and one Bhagelal Gond were found on the main road of village Kumharwara and the injuries were found on their dead bodies. It is stated further therein that on 13.12.2015 in the night around 11 to 12 pm, the armed uniformed naxalites, namely Rakesh, Jamuna and others came and took his son, while alleging that he was the informer to the police and threatened to kill, if disclosed the incident to anyone and, thereafter, on 16.12.2015 around 7:30 pm, he received the information that his son’s dead body and one person was lying on the main road of village Kumharawa and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/20) was registered against the naxalites, namely, Rakesh, Dama, Jamuna, Rita and 8 to 10 other naxalites of “Tanda Dalam” group and, during the course of investigation, a blanket owned by the deceased was recovered from the respondent-Jaisingh @ Balla Netam on 04.03.2016 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Pratapi Ram (PW/4) and Amar Lal (PW/5) based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/6), which was identified by his father vide (Ex.P/4) and, the respondent has, thus, been implicated and charge-sheeted for the commission of the alleged crime. 3. From perusal of the merg intimation (Ex.P/17) lodged by the father of the deceased, it appears that his son was taken away on 3 13.12.2015 by Rakesh, Jamuna and other naxalites, while alleging that he was the informer of the police and the dead body of his son was recovered on 16.12.2015 and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/20) was registered against Rakesh, Dama, Jamuna, Rita and others naxalites persons of the group known as “Tanda Dalam”. But, from a bare perusal of his alleged report, it appears that he has not disclosed the name of the respondent, who, thus, appears to have been implicated for the commission of the alleged crime only because a “blanket” owned by the deceased was recovered from him on 04.3.2016 vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7). The attesting witnesses of it namely, Pratapi Ram (PW/4) and Amar Lal (PW/5) have, however, not stated that the alleged “blanket” was recovered from him. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it for attributing him for his involvement for the commission of the alleged crime. 4. Pertinently, to be noted here further, as observed and revealed from the alleged merg intimation (Ex.P/17), lodged by deceased’s father, that the respondent had not come to his house on 13.12.2015, but, when he was examined before the Court as PW/1, it was, however, stated that on the said fateful day in the night around 12:00 pm, he (Jaisingh @ Balla Netam) had come along with 10 to 12 persons and had forcefully took his son along with him. His statement, therefore, cannot be held to be trustworthy and no reliance could be placed upon it, in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. 5. In view of the aforesaid background and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said 4 that the respondent was involved for the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Arpan