1 2026:CGHC:562-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.310 of 2022 1 - Shivnandan Thakur S/o Late Lakhanlal Thakur Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No.4, Panchayat Para Khursun, Post Gabdi, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Police Station Arjunda, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Arjunda, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vikram Singh @ Vicky S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Sahu Aged About 30 Years 3 - Yogesh Sahu @ Yogi S/o Yashwant Sahu Aged About 19 Years Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are R/o Village Khursuni, Police Station Arjunda, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. C. K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey J. 06/01/2026 1. Heard on admission. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.09.2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Session Case No.46/2021, whereby the respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.06.2021, the dead body of Tamesh Thakur (son of appellant) was lying near Bhatha Talab of Village Godela. The intimation to the above effect was given to the Police Station, Arjunda and the dead body was identified by appellant as his son. Initially the merg was registered and dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report was obtained and the cause of death was reported as homicidal in nature. During merg enquiry, the memorandum statement of the accused/respondents no. 2 & 3 were recorded, in which, the accused Vikram admitted that the deceased used to take cigarette from the shop of accused Vikram and he also used to demand liquor from him. On 13.06.2021 the deceased demanded liquor from the accused Vikram, due to which the respondents no. 2 & 3 prepared plan for killing of deceased and in furtherance of same, they took the deceased in the motorcycle towards Bhatha Talab, where the accused consumed 1-1 quarter liquor and the deceased consumed 3 quarters liquor and after consuming liquor, the deceased fell down and thereafter the accused persons have killed the deceased by sword. After 3 investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent No.2 & 3 of the aforesaid charges, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct prospective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondent No.2 & 3, but despite the same the accused respondents have been acquitted. He further submits that at the instance of the accused persons, the weapons sword, knife and pistol were recovered and PW-2 Uttam Kumar Sahu and PW-3 Kamta Prasad Sahu have supported the seizure of weapons from the possession of the accused persons and as per FSL report, blood stains were also found on the seized clothes and weapons. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned Court below is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial 4 Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its true perspective and has wrongly acquitted the respondent No.2 & 3 of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms against the accused/respondent Nos.2 & 3 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 & 3 of the aforesaid charges. 8. PW-1 Shivnandan Thakur, father of deceased, stated that somebody informed that dead body of his son was lying near Bhata Talab, thereafter he went to place. He stated that prior to 5-6 months of the incident, some quarrel took place between the deceased and the respondents accused. In cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion that he did not see his son while going with anyone. 9. PW-2 Uttam Kumar Sahu, Kamta Prasad Sahu (PW-3), Brajlal Sahu (PW-4), Rameshwar Sahu (PW-5), Nilesh Kumar Sahu (PW-6) all the witnesses admitted their signatures on inquest memo and notice. 5 10. PW-2 Uttam Kumar Sahu and PW-3 Kamta Prasad Sahu admitted their signatures on memorandum (Ex-P/8) and (Ex-P/9) and house search memo (Ex-P/10), recovery memo (Ex-P/11), seizure memo (Ex-P/12), (PW-13), (Ex-P/14), (Ex-P/15) and Ex- P/16) but they denied any memorandum and seizure before them. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross- examined them but they denied all suggestions of prosecution. In FSL report, human blood was found in Article -H/1, which is half shirt but as per seizure memo, t-shirt was seized from the accused vide Ex-P/12 but no blood stain was found in the said t- shirt. There is no eye witness in this case and also no last seen evidence. The FIR was recorded against the unknown persons. The memorandum and seizure were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents accused and acquitted the respondents. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- 6 (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Radhakishan Agrawal Judge Judge Nirala