1 2026:CGHC:1878-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 235 of 2015 Vishnu Verma S/o Laxman Prashad Verma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kharora, Near Government Rest House, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Appellant versus 1 - Jati Ram Sahu S/o Late Ramkishun Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 2 - Meghraj S/o Krishna Kumar Dhruv, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 3 - Tarun Verma S/o Ganesh Prasad Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 4 - Kameshwar S/o Ram Kishun Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 5 - Santosh Sahu S/o Ganeshram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 6 - Tekram Verma S/o Rishi Verma Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 7 - Rajesh Patel S/o Binduram Patel, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 8 - Gajadhar Verma S/o Kartikram Verma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). 9 - Santosh Verma S/o Late Nathuram Verma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Thana Palari, Distt. Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.). PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.14 15:21:50 +0530 2 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana Incharge Palari, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amitesh Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 9 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For State/Respondent No.10 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. ACQA No. 243 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer Palari, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1 - Jatiram Sahu S/o Late Ramkishun Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 2 - Meghraj, S/o Krishna Kumar Dhruv, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 3 - Tarun Verma, S/o Ganesh Prasad Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 4 - Kameshwar, S/o Ramkishun Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 5 - Santosh Sahu, S/o Ganeshram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 6 - Tekram Verma, S/o Rishi Verma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 3 7 - Rajesh Patel, S/o Binduram Patel, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 8 - Gajadhar Verma, S/o Kartikram Verma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 9 - Santosh Verma, S/o Late Nathuram Verma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jarve, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). --- Respondents For State/Appellant : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents : None. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 13/01/2026 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 15/10/2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No.07/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 280/34 and 304/34 of IPC and, in alternatively under Section 304-A of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondents/accused persons have been charge- sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 280/34 and 304/34 of IPC and in alternatively under Section 304- A of IPC on the allegation that on the fateful day, i.e. 29/09/2014 4 at about 10:00 P.M., the respondents, who are alleged to have been the member of the Student Welfare Committee of village- Jarve, have organized a boating and collected some amount from the persons for boating without taking any permission from the competent authority of the concerned Janpad Panchayat and, it was alleged that because of their negligent, the boat, during the course of the boating, suddenly fell down under the water owing to certain holes on it and, as a result of which, 02 persons, namely, Adi Verma, aged about 3½ years old, son of the complainant- Vishnu Verma and one Shailja Verma, the niece of the said complainant have died, while others have been rescued. The respondents who have charged as such have denied the same and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the persons, namely, Yogesh Kumar Verma (PW-2), Sanjay Kumar Verma (PW-3), Girish Kumar Verma (PW-4), Pankaj Mandle (PW-5) and Gendlal Verma (PW-6), who were boating on the said fateful day, were examined. 4. From perusal of the statement of Yogesh Kumar Verma (PW-2), it appears that, on the said fateful day, one Monu Verma has collected Rs.15/- from him, at the rate of Rs.5/- for 03 persons and, according to him, the alleged boating was being organized by the Student Welfare Committee, where as many as 20 to 25 persons were sitting on the said boat. It appears further 5 from para 6 of his cross-examination that, none of the accused persons have collected any amount for boating from him and reiterated that said Monu Verma, who is the resident of village- Jarve, has collected the said amount/fare from him. 5. Sanjay Kumar Verma (PW-3) has also stated in his evidence that he has given a sum of Rs.25/- to said Monu Verma for boating, but he has not given any receipt, as revealed from para 15 of his cross-examination. 6. Girish Kumar Verma (PW-4), in his evidence deposed that, because Durga Festival was being organized by the Student Welfare Committee at village- Jarve and as the banner of it was near the “Durga Utsav Samiti” and since the boating was being done near by it, therefore, he is thinking and understanding that the alleged boating was being organized by the said Committee and, has paid fare amount of Rs.10/- for boating, for which, no receipt was given to him by the said Committee. 7. According to Pankaj Mandle (PW-5), a sum of Rs.15/- was given by Yogesh Kumar Verma (PW-2) for boating to said Monu Verma, who has not given any receipt to this effect and, deposed further at para 9 that, since he has seen the banner of the Committee, therefore, he is saying that the alleged boating was being done by the Committee and, likewise Gendlal Verma (PW- 6) has deposed in his cross-examination that, since the banner of the Committee was there near the “Durga Utsav Samiti”, 6 therefore, based upon it, he is saying that the alleged boating was done by the Committee. 8. From perusal of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, who were boating at the relevant point of time, it appears that none of the accused persons have collected any amount from them or have sailing the boat and, infact one Monu Verma has collected the fare for boating, but surprisingly neither he was implicated as one of the accused persons, or even was shown to be the prosecution witness for ascertaining the actual facts, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 9. That apart, it reveals from the statement of Investigation Officer (PW-13), namely, U.K. Sharma, that at the time of preparing the spot map (Ex.P/9), it was stated by him that 02 persons have jumped from the boat into the river, owing to which, the boat got unbalanced and, similar was the fact revealed from the inquests (Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6) made by him. 10. In view of such circumstances and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, led by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that on the said fateful day, the boating was being done or organized by the respondents, the member of the Student Welfare Committee, or even any of the respondents were sailing the boat. The trial Court after taking note of those materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents/accused persons from the commission of the 7 alleged crime. 11. Both these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant