1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 291 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 05.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 07.03.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Incharge, Police Station Antagarh, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Vikaas Verma, S/o Ramasare Verma, aged about 25 Years, R/o Majri Ward No. 3 (Chaitanya Colony) Quarter No. 2 (WCL), Police Station Majri, District Chandrapur, Maharashtra. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), North Bastar, Kanker, C.G. in Special Case No.35/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989] (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.03.2015 at about 17:30 hours, accused / respondent committed murder of Chandrapal Kurre, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.07 18:06:18 +0530 2 a member of Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter called as 'deceased') by throttling and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Further case of the prosecution is that on 21.03.2015 at about 18:15 hours, PW-14 Dayawanti, Sarpanch of the village, informed the police station Antagarh over phone that near the jungle at Himoda Sheetlapara, one person parked car on the road, dragged a dead body from the car, left it in the jungle and fled away from there leaving a car. On the basis of said information, PW-12 G.S. Thakur, Assistant Sub-Inspector along with one Khemraj Sahu went to the spot and saw Alto Car bearing registration No.CG08-G-6772 parked on the road and a dead body lying 30 metres away from the car which had marks of dragging. Thereafter, dead body was brought to Government Hospital, Antagarh and after looking to the RC book of the said Alto car, owner of the vehicle- Hiradas Kurre was contacted and he informed that his son- deceased himself drove the said Alto Car and took the family of one Arjun Sharma to village Antagarh. After that Arjun Sharma's brother namely Ashok Sharma was contacted and asked to identify the dead body, then he told that deceased- Chandrapal Kurre was the driver who had gone to Antagarh Basti by Alto car along with accused- Vikaas Verma. On the basis of said information, Merg Intimation (Ex.P-14) was recorded and FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered against the accused/respondent. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P- 5. Thereafter, dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-15 Dr. B.K. Ramteke, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-15A. According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia owing to ligature strangulation and nature of death of deceased was opined to be 3 homicidal. During investigation, accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-19. Memorandum statement of the accused/respondent was recorded vide Ex.P-7, consequent to which, one scarf (gamcha) was seized vide Ex.P-8. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. Accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 24 documents. However, the accused/respondent in support of his defence has examined none, but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State would submit that the finding of the trial Court acquitting the respondent herein from the alleged offences is apparently contrary to law, as the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-2 Heera Das Kurre, has not been considered in its proper manner by the trial Court and despite there being clinching evidence against the respondent/accused showing his complicity in the crime in question, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused / respondent would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect to alleged crime in question. He would also submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that no sufficient evidence is available on record to connect the accused/respondent with the crime in question. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offences? 11. PW-2 Heera Das Kurre, father of the deceased, has stated that on the date of incident, his son-deceased took Arjun Lal Sharma and his family to Antagarh in his Alto car and after reaching there, at 11:00 am, 5 deceased-Chandrapal informed him over phone that he reached Antagarh and on way, accused/respondent accompanied him and told him that pandit ji is attending discourse (pravchan) and he and accused-Vikaas Verma are sitting outside. After that, at about 4:00 pm, deceased-Chandrapal again called him and told that they are about to return, but deceased-Chandrapal did not disclose that respondent- accused also accompanied him while he was returning. He has further stated that at about 7:00 pm, T.I. Thakur of Antagarh police station called him over phone and asked about the Alto car, upon which, he told him that it is his car, then he (T.I.) told him that one dead body is lying in the car, but according to PW-12 G.S. Thakur, ASI, dead body of deceased was lying 30 metres away from the said Alto Car and PW-14 Dayavanti has also stated that dead body of deceased was lying at some distance from the said Alto Car. This witness (PW-2) has also stated that when he reached the spot, he saw a rope mark over the neck of deceased, but from the possession of accused/respondent only scarf (ghamcha) was seized and no rope was seized from the possession of the respondent. This apart, PW-14 Dayavanti, Sarpanch of the village, has stated that PW-11 Meghnath informed her that in between Saraipara and Seetlapara road, one dead body was lying. Thereafter, she herself went to the spot and informed the police. After reaching the spot, she saw one red colour car parked near the road and at some distance, one dead body was lying there. In cross-examination, she admitted that PW-11 Meghnath did not state her anything except the dead body lying on the road side. Moreover, PW-11 Meghnath has stated that 6 PW-17 Devshila and PW-9 Purnima informed him that someone has killed one person and threw his dead body in the jungle. Thereafter, he went over there and saw one red colour car and dead body of a person lying there. He has further stated that at the spot, he did not see anybody fleeing and throwing the dead body. He has also stated that PW-17 Devshila and PW-9 Purnima told him that the person who threw the dead body was wearing white T-shirt. In cross-examination, he also admitted that he did not see the accused/respondent throwing the dead body in the jungle. Moreover, PW-17 Devshila and PW-9 Purnima, who informed about the incident to PW-11 Meghnath, have also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Besides, PW-4 Gautam Sharma has stated that at the time of discourse (pravchan), he did not see respondent/accused and deceased- Chandrapal near the said Alto car and PW-1 Sunil Kumar Pandey has also stated that he did not see the deceased-Chandrapal in the company of respondent- Vikas Verma after the discourse (pravchan). Moreover, PW-16 Subash Sharma, who had booked the said Alto Car, has also not supported the case of the prosecution and only stated that except booking of Alto car, he does not know anything about the incident. Apart from this, contents of merg intimation (Ex.P-14) would show that during investigation, brother of Arjun Sharma namely Ashok Sharma informed that deceased-Chandrapal along with accused- Vikaas Sharma had gone to Anatgarh Basti by Alto car, but said Ashok Sharma has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 7 12. Thus, from the evidence of above evidence, it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement PW-2 Hira Das Kurre, father of the deceased and his statement does not corroborate with other prosecution witnesses with respect to the commission of crime by the accused/respondent. Further, there is no evidence available on record which would suggest that deceased was seen lastly in the company of accused/respondent and it is also not proved by the prosecution that accused/respondent was seen near the dead body or dragging the dead body towards the jungle. Moreover, witnesses to seizure namely PW-6 Johau Ram Mandavi and PW-7 Virendra Nag have also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and that no such incriminating article was seized from the accused/respondent. Furthermore, no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution so as to know the fact that the accused/respondent himself is the author of the crime in question. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution come to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused/respondent is the perpetrator of the crime in question and further held that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any motive of the accused/respondent to commit murder of deceased and as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charges as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of 8 considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused / respondent herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused / respondent herein of the aforesaid charges is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh