1 2025:CGHC:25618-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 181 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Sohan Yadav, S/o Rajaram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri , Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohan Yadav, S/o Rajaram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri , Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajaram Yadav, S/o Late Jagatram Yadav, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Sambalpuri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For State/Appellant : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents : None, though served ACQA No. 2 of 2018 Smt. Anushuiya Bai, Wd/o Late Harinarayan @ Balu Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.19 17:39:28 +0530 2 2 - Sohan Yadav, S/o Rajaram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mohan Yadav S/o Rajaram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajaram Yadav S/o Late Jagatram Yadav, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : None, though served D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 19/06/2025 1. Since both these appeals have preferred by appellant/State and the complainant against the impugned common judgment, they are being disposed of this common judgment. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 20/01/2017 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.04/2016, respondent No.1- Sohan Yadav and respondent No.2-Mohan Yadav have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, while, respondent No.3- Rajaram Yadav has been acquitted under Section 201 of IPC . 3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 16/11/2015, at about 08:30 A.M., one Radheshyam Sahu (PW-21) 3 lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P/3) before the Police Station- Chakarbhata, District-Bilaspur (C.G.), stating therein that, on the previous day, i.e., 15/11/2015 at 06:00 P.M., his brother (deceased- Harinarayan) has left the house in order to deposit electricity bill by his motorcycle, but did not return till late night, therefore, they have tried to contact him on his mobile phone, which was found to be switched off. It is stated further that in the next day morning, the motorcycle of the deceased was found by side of the road and at some distance, pen of deceased was also found, on which, some blood stain was deducted and the dead body of him was lying into the water. 4. Upon receiving the said information, the concerned Police Station has registered the FIR vide Ex.P/6 under Section 302 of IPC against an unknown person. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/9 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Gupta, who vide his report (Ex.P/4), opined the cause of death to be asphyxia occurred due to throttling and chest injury and, based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P/19) of respondent No.1- Sohan Yadav, one golden ring, a golden chain and an iron bangle (kada) was seized from him vide Ex.P/20 on 17/11/2015 and, based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P/21) of respondent No.2- Mohan Yadav, broken mobile of black colour was seized from him vide Ex.P/22 on the same day and, vide Ex.P/24, a chimney filled with kerosene oil and a match box was recovered from respondent No.3-Rajaram Yadav based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/23). Certain burnt clothes of respondent No.1- 4 Sohan Yadav and respondent No.2- Mohan Yadav, apart from a blood stained soil, were recovered from the spot and was sent for chemical examination. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) against the respondents in connection with the Crime No.370/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC were framed against respondent No.1- Sohan Yadav and respondent No.2- Mohan Yadav, while the charge under Section 201 IPC was framed against their father namely, Rajaram Yadav (respondent No.3) and, the charges so framed were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 29 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since no cogent and reliable evidence was placed against the respondents, therefore, they have been held to be innocent and, accordingly, acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the 5 finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 8. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice of these appeals. 9. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the entire record carefully. 10. The respondent No.1-Sohan Yadav and respondent No.2- Mohan Yadav have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, while their father – Rajaram Yadav (respondent No.3) under Section 201 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 15/11/2015 when the deceased had left the house and the dead body of him was found on the next day, i.e., 16/11/2015. 11. Perusal of the record would show that based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P/19) of respondent No.1- Sohan Yadav, one golden ring, a golden chain and one iron bangle (kada) was recovered from him in presence of two witnesses, namely, Mohanlal Dongre (PW-10) and Durga Prasad (PW-7), while broken mobile of black colour was recovered from respondent No.2- Mohan Yadav based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/21) and based upon the 6 disclosure statement of their father, namely, Rajaram Yadav (respondent No.3), one chimney filled with kerosene oil and a match box was recovered from him vide Ex.P/24 in presence of said two witnesses. However, the alleged seizures were not found to be proved by them, i.e., PW-7 (Durga Prasad) and PW-10 (Mohanlal Dongre). 12. It is to be seen further that while taking the assistance of Sniffer dog, the house of the accused was identified, but that cannot be held to be sufficient to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime in absence of its corroboration. The entire case based upon the circumstantial evidence has, thus, not found to be supported by any cogent and reliable piece of evidence. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that the respondents are in any manner involved in connection with the alleged crime and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13. The appeals being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant