1 2026:CGHC:21133-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 157 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus • Rajesh Tiwari S/o Jagdish Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vijay Smarak Chowk, Ghumka, Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadaw, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Sh ri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 06/05/2026 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 18/05/2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.55/2016, whereby, the respondent has CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.06 17:59:28 +0530 2 been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 23/04/2016, a merg intimation (Ex.P-10) was lodged by one Vishnu Ram Nishad, the brother-in-law of the deceased- Amrika Bai, before the Police Station, Ghumka of District Rajnandgaon, stating therein, that the wife of his brother, i.e. Amrika Bai was living separately from her husband- Shrawan Nishad alongwith her 3 children, who had love affair with the respondent- Rajesh Tiwari. It is stated further that on the date of incident, he was standing in front of his house around 09:45 AM, the youngest daughter of the deceased, namely, Vandana came and informed him that something has happened with her mother, owing to which, he reached her house where he has seen the blood was oozing from the head of the deceased and she was lying on the floor and, it was stated further that on the date of incident, the respondent- Rajesh Tiwari after coming out of the house fled away by his motorcycle and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-27) was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.46/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the allegation that he had love affair with the deceased and has assaulted her with the aid of stone and sickle. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and the dead body of her was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. S.N. Hussaini (PW-7), who vide his report (Ex.P-2A), opined the cause of death was shock occurred due to multiple injuries to neck alongwith multiple facial bone fracture and accordingly, the same 3 was opined to be unnatural and, during the further investigation, stone and sickle was recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-8 on 23/04/2016 with blood stain in presence of two witnesses, namely, Vishnu Ram Nishad and Ganesh Ram Sahu, while pant, shirt, shoes, cap and Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-CF-5932 owned by the respondent/accused was recovered at Police Station on 23/04/2016 vide Ex.P-9, in presence of the said two witnesses and the clothes, i.e., saree, blouse, petticoat and underwear of the deceased was recovered on 12/05/2016 vide Ex.P-1 and the alleged seizures alongwith the blood of the deceased marked as “G”, were sent for chemical examination and according to the FSL report (Ex.P-27), human blood of group ‘B’ was found on the shoes “E-4” owned by the respondent/accused, but, owing to disintegrated blood group could not be ascertained with regard to the blood “G” of the deceased- Amrika Bai. After completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnangaon, who in turn, has committed the matter before the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and, the charge so framed was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents, while none was examined by him in his defence. 4 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, as no cogent or material evidence was found to be led by the prosecution against him and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to 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 findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the deceased’s daughters, namely, Ku. Lukeshwari (PW-2) and Ku. Tejeshwari (PW-4) have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. 6) Learned counseling appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, as passed by the trial Court. 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 has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the allegation that he was in love affair with the deceased- Amrika Bai and on the said fateful day, i.e. 23/04/2016, he assaulted her with the aid of stone (Lodha) and sickle in order to commit the murder of her. 5 9) In order to establish, the alleged allegation, the daughter of the deceased, namely, Ku. Lukeshwari, was examined as (PW-2) and according to her testimony, it appears that on the said fateful day, i.e. 23/04/2016, the respondent came to her house, but after sometime, he returned and, it was deposed further that on the said day, she and her mother both left the house and her mother had gone towards the tank, while she went for her work and when she returned, she, then, came to know that her mother was lying on the floor with pool of blood. Ku. Ku. Tejeshwari (PW-4), who is the another daughter of the deceased has stated in her evidence that on the said fateful day, she went to the school and when she returned by 10 AM, she has seen her mother lying on the floor and, she deposed further that since she was in the school on the date of occurrence of the incident, therefore, she has not seen anyone coming out from the house, while Vishnu Nishad (PW-3), the brother-in-law of the deceased and who had stated in his merg intimation (Ex.P-10) that on the said fateful day, he has seen the accused/respondent coming out of the house of the deceased and fled away by his motorcycle, but has, failed to stated so in his court’s statement and, instead, it was stated suo-moto specifically at paragraph 12 of his testimony that he was not known who committed the murder of his brother’s wife. 10) In view of the aforesaid testimonies, it, thus, appears that none have seen the alleged assault nor, any cogent and reliable evidence has been led by the prosecution attributing the respondent for his involvement in connection with the alleged crime and, the trial Court 6 has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Chandrakant