1 2025:CGHC:11053-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 27 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Incharge, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Balak Ram Manjhi S/o Sukhiram Manjhi, Aged About 45 Years, 2 - Tilmet Bai Manjhi W/o Balak Ram Manjhi, Aged About 35 Years, Both Are R/o Village Jarkat, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 06/03/2025 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 25/04/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Raigarh District CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.07 10:40:42 +0530 2 Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.83/2015, whereby, the Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201/34 IPC, while Respondent No.2- Tilmet Bai Manjhi has been acquitted under Sections 302 and 201/34 IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 08/05/2015, a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by deceased’s husband, namely, Ujitram Manjhi before the Police Station Gharghoda of District Raigarh, submitting therein that on 06/05/2015, his wife Shanimati Bai was called by one Usai Bai and thereafter, both went to the house of Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi, where they consumed liquor and after having food, his wife around 11-12 PM had gone somewhere else and during the course of search, her dead body was found near the Gudsari forest of Champaguda in the evening around 4 PM, where certain injuries were found to be detected on her hand, leg and neck. The dead body of the deceased was, thereafter recovered on 08/05/2015 and inquest of it was made on 09/05/2015 vide Ex.P-3 and sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. A.K. Minj on 10/05/2015, who vide his report (Ex.P- 16), opined the cause of death to be cardio respiratory arrest occurred as a result of head injury and throttling and opined further that sexual intercourse was committed with her. Based upon the alleged information, and that by considering the postmortem report (Ex.P-16), an FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered on 11/05/2015 against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC and during the course of investigation, the 3 respondents were arrested on 13/05/2015 and based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-6) of Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi, a wooden stick was recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P-8) on 13/05/2015 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Uttara Kumar (PW-4) and Mahesh Das (PW-3) and, the article so recovered, was sent for its chemical examination on 12/06/2015, which was received by the concerned laboratory on 15/06/2015, but no report in this regard was placed on record. After completion of the usual investigation, a charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh against the Respondents, who are husband and wife, in connection with Crime No.124/2015 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of IPC. The matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Raigarh for its trial, who in turn, has framed the charge against Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi under Sections 376, 302 and 201/34 of IPC, while Respondent No.2- Tilmet Bai Manjhi was charged under Sections 302 and 201/34 IPC and, the charges, so framed, were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, while none was examined by the Respondents in their defence. 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the Respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, they 4 have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the Trial Court, holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of Ujitram (PW-2), the husband of the deceased and one Usai Bai (PW-1), with whom, the deceased had gone to the house of the Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, while referring to the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) lodged by the husband of the deceased, submits that the deceased was, in fact, left the house of the Respondent No.1 and had gone somewhere else, and in absence of any eye witness to this effect, the Trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged offence, as such, no interference is required for in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201/34 of IPC, 5 while his wife, the Respondent No.2- Tilmet Bai Manjhi, under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the Respondents, who are husband and wife, and the deceased- Shanimati Manjhi was familiar with them, who was in the house of the Respondents on the fateful day and in the night, they consumed liquor and slept. It was alleged further that in the night, when Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi, committing sexual intercourse with the deceased, he was seen by his wife, the Respondent No.2- Tilmet Bai Manjhi, owing to which, she got annoyed and started throttling the neck of the deceased and thereafter, her husband also assaulted the deceased with the aid of wooden stick, as a result of which, she died. It, thus, appears, as revealed from the prosecution story, that on the date of incident, the deceased was in the house of the Respondents, however, a bare perusal of the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) lodged by deceased’s husband, it appears that although, his wife had gone to the house of the Respondents alongwith one Usai Bai, but has, however, left their house around 11-12 PM and had gone somewhere else. It appears further that her dead body was found on 08/05/2015 near the Gudsari forest of Champaguda and since nothing was alleged against the Respondents at that particular time, therefore, offence was registered against an unknown person. It appears further that during the course of investigation, one wooden stick was recovered at the instance of Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi vide Ex.P-8 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Uttara Kumar (PW-4) and Mahesh Das (PW-3), however, both these witnesses have not supported the alleged 6 recovery from him. According to the prosecution, the incident was occurred on 06/05/2015, however, the dead body was recovered on 08/05/2015 and the FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered on 11/05/2015 and no explanation, whatsoever, has been offered as to why the report has been lodged upon such a delay. 9) Besides, Usai Bai (PW-1), with whom, the deceased had gone to the house of the Respondents, has even not supported the prosecution story as it was stated by her in her cross-examination that she doesn’t know where the deceased had gone. Insofar as the statement of the husband of the deceased, namely, Ujitram Manjhi (PW-2) is concerned, it appears that though, the deceased-wife had gone to the house of the Respondents alongwith said Usai Bai, but in his cross-examination, at paragraph 4, he was, however, unable to state that whether his wife had gone to the house of Respondent No.1- Balak Ram Manjhi or not. No cogent and reliance evidence has, thus, been placed on record in order to attribute the Respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. In view of such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the Respondents in any manner are involved in connection with the alleged crime. 10) Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit is dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant