1 2026:CGHC:5138-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 319 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Chhotedongar, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Sataro Salam, S/o Shri Sonsai Salam, aged about 28 Years, R/o Tadonar, P. S. Jhara, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Neela Mandavi, D/o Shri Dashru Mandavi, aged about 26 Years, R/o Oyenger, P.S. Orchha, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Buddhu Korram, S/o Shri Banja Korram, aged about 36 Years, R/o Oyenger, P.S. Orchha, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Mata Korram @ Kamlu Korram, S/o Shri Manglu Korram, aged about 41 Years, R/o Oyenger, P.S. Orchha, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Dashru Mandavi, S/o Shri Lakhma Mandavi, aged about 45 Years, R/o Oyenger, P.S. Orchha, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 30.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offence) Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G., in Special Sessions Case No.39/2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.02 17:52:29 +0530 2 accused persons/respondents of the charges under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149, 121, 121(a) of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and also acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the offences under Sections 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004 (as mentioned in the trial Court's order sheet dated 26.12.2017). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.11.2015, during Naxalite search operations conducted by the police party of Police Station Dhanora, District Narayanpur, two female accused, namely Sataro Salam and Neela Mandavi, were allegedly apprehended in the forest area between Village Oyenger and Village Maksouli while addressing villagers. It is alleged that firearms, ammunition, explosive substances and Naxalite literature were recovered from their possession vide Exs.P-7 & 8. According to the prosecution, the remaining accused persons were also associated with the said activities and were members of a banned terrorist organisation, CPI (Maoist). Thereafter, accused persons were taken into custody and FIR (Ex.P-21) was registered against them. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submits that the evidence of the police witnesses clearly proves that the accused persons were apprehended during Naxalite search operations and that arms, ammunition, explosive material and Naxalite literature were recovered from their possession. He also submits that merely because the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the testimony of official witnesses could not have been disbelieved. He also submits that there is cogent, reliable and clinching evidence on record to establish that accused persons/respondents are the authors of the crime in question. Despite the availability of sufficient and convincing evidence, the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal is stated to suffer from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 4 8. PW-1 Arvind Kushwaha, Head Constable, stated that he was part of the police party which had gone on Naxalite search operations. He further stated that two armed female Naxalites were apprehended and that arms and other articles were seized. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that no seizure proceedings were conducted in his presence and specifically stated that only a backpack bag and a firearm were seized at the spot, whereas the remaining articles were seized at the police station. He also did not specifically state that the seized articles were recovered from the possession of the present accused persons, nor did he clearly identify the apprehended female Naxalites as accused- Sataro Salam and Neela Mandavi. He also did not attribute any role to the male accused persons. Thus, his evidence does not conclusively establish either the identity of the accused persons or the alleged recovery. 9. PW-3 Mohit Bohare, Section Commander, admitted in his evidence that the nine grenades and gunpowder brought before him for examination were not in sealed condition and were kept openly in a bag. He further admitted that the examination report allegedly prepared by him, bearing his signature, is not available on record in the present case. Thus, the alleged examination of the seized explosives is rendered doubtful and the prosecution has failed to establish the safe custody, proper handling, and authenticity of the seized articles. 10.PW-4 Manghu Mandavi, an independent witness, did not support the prosecution case. He stated that accused- Neela did not possess any weapon and further deposed that no outsiders from other villages used to come to their village. He also stated that the police had taken accused- 5 Neela and Sataro from their homes in his presence. However, on the contrary, PW-5 Satish Pandey, Platoon Commander, stated that all the accused persons were present in the forest and were instigating villagers against the Government. He further stated that the police surrounded and apprehended the accused persons, and on being asked, one of them disclosed her name as Neela Mandavi and the other disclosed his name as Sataro Salam. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the remaining three accused were apprehended after being chased for a short distance from the spot. He also admitted that his police statement was recorded on 13.12.2016, whereas the alleged incident took place on 28.11.2015. He further admitted that no independent witnesses were associated with the seizure proceedings. Thus, the statements of PW-4 Manghu Mandavi and PW-5 Satish Pandey are contradictory with each other and create serious doubt about the prosecution version of the incident. 11.PW-11 Prashant Kumar Nag, Investigating Officer, stated that on the date of incident, two female Naxalites were found addressing villagers and were apprehended. Upon search of backpack of accused- Neela Mandavi, a 12 bore rifle, three cartridges, one black backpack containing a green Naxalite uniform, torch, nine country-made grenades, three cotton wires and other articles were seized vide Ex.P-7. Further, upon search of the green bag of accused- Sataro, a red Naxalite banner, black shirt and pant, black bag, 250 gms gunpowder and other articles were seized vide Ex.P-8. Significantly, he did not state that the male accused persons were present at the spot. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no independent seizure witness was examined, despite villagers being present at the place of occurrence. He further admitted that no independent witnesses were 6 associated with the seizure proceedings and that only police personnel were made witnesses, stating that no independent witnesses were available at the spot. Thus, the evidence of the Investigating Officer also suffers from serious shortcomings, as the presence of the male accused at the spot is not established and no independent witnesses were associated with the seizure proceedings, despite their availability, which further weakens the prosecution case and creates serious doubt about the alleged incident. This apart, PW-14 Kosa Ram stated that he had called accused- Neela and Sataro to his field for cutting paddy. He further stated that the police came there and surrounded the field, and when the police enquired about Neela and Sataro, he informed them that he had called them for agricultural work. This evidence makes the alleged presence of the accused at the place of incident doubtful. 12.PW-6 Naval Kodopi, Assistant Sub-Inspector, admitted that no independent witnesses were associated with the seizure proceedings. He further admitted that the seizure was conducted between 12:00 noon and 1:00 PM and that it took about 45 minutes to complete the proceedings. However, on the contrary, the seizure memos (Exs. P-7 and P-8) mention the time of seizure as 2:15 PM and 2:30 PM, respectively, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness and credibility of the seizure proceedings. 13. On a cumulative appreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution case is based mainly on the testimony of police witnesses. Their evidence suffers from material contradictions and omissions regarding the presence of the accused persons, the manner and timing of their apprehension and the conduct of seizure proceedings. Independent 7 witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story and the alleged recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives is not supported by credible evidence or proper custody records. The evidence fails to conclusively link the accused persons to the alleged offences. In view of these material discrepancies and the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 14.The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of 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:- "(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, 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 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." 8 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of trial Court. 16.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh