1 2026:CGHC:308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.176 of 2015 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Kashiram Sahu S/o Tiharu Ram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Sirrikala, Police Station Fingeshwar District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Anand Dadariya, Dy.AG For Respondent(s) : None, though served DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 05/01/2026 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 11/09/2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.23/2012, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 201 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 12/12/2011, the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5) was lodged by the Kotwar-Netu Das before SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.01.06 11:02:39 +0530 2 the Police Station-Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, submitting that he received the information from one Bhikhu Ram Dhruv that one deadbody of a woman was lying near the Chitalkhol Pond of Village- Bamhandevi and based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P- 20) was registered by the Police Station-Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband against an unknown person on 15/12/2011 based upon the merg enquiry under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC in connection with the Crime No.137/2011. During the course of investigation, a bloodstained stick was recovered from the respondent on 16/12/2011 vide Ex.P-2 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Banshi Lal Thakur (PW-1) and Lalla Ram Dhruv (PW-2), based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-1) and during the further investigation, it was revealed that the respondent has a doubt regarding the character of his wife, the deceased, namely, Sakun Bai and that was the motive why he has committed the murder of his wife, while throttling her neck and also with the aid of stick and after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the matter was thereafter committed to the learned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondent was charge- sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned hereinabove, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the daughter of the deceased, namely, Jamna Bai was examined as PW-11 and it was stated by her that 6 to 7 months prior to the occurrence of the 3 alleged incident, her mother had gone with her father, the respondent herein, in order to provide her treatment, but, he returned back alone and when a query was made by her another sisters, namely, Ganga Bai and Godawari Bai, it was, then, informed by him that he left her alone near the river. She deposed further at para-3, that since the respondent-accused had given four acres of land to his son-Anand, it was, therefore, objected by her mother, owing to which, he got annoyed and committed the murder of her mother and, similar was the statement of her another sister, namely, Ganga Sahu (PW-12). In view of their testimonies, it cannot be said that she was murdered by her husband, because he had a doubt about her character, as alleged by the prosecution. Although, it was stated by them that sometimes prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, their mother, the deceased, had gone with the father-the respondent herein and, who returned alone, but, merely on the basis of their testimonies as such, it cannot be said that he was the author of the alleged crime, particularly when their testimonies are not found to be corroborated by other cogent and reliable peace of evidence as, the stick, alleged to have been recovered with bloodstained was neither found to be proved by its witnesses, namely, Banshi Lal Thakur (PW-1) and Lalla Ram Dhruv (PW-2), nor any chemical report to this effect was placed on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 4) In view of the aforesaid background and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the respondent was involved for the commission of the murder of his 4 wife, namely, Sakun Bai (the deceased) and after taking note of those materials, the trial Court 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. 5) Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit is dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Tumane