1 2026:CGHC:5658-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 359 of 2019  The State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Station House Officer, Police Station – Arjuni, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  Chiranjivi Yadav, S/o Late Shri Kishan Yadav, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Loharsi, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : None DB : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (02.02.2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J Heard on Admission. 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the 2 State/appellant herein against the judgment dated 24.10.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.14/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.12.2017 in morning, Umendra Kumar Tandon (PW-10), Inspector of Police Station Arjuni, received an information that a partially half burnt dead body of a woman was lying near the boundary wall of the school at Village Loharasi. Upon receiving the said information, he proceeded to Village Loharasi along with the staff and investigation kit. On making enquiries regarding the half burnt body of the woman, it was identified as the dead body of Revati Yadav. On the report lodged at the spot by complainant Raghunandan Yadav, an unnumbered merg intimation (Ex.P-5) and an unnumbered offence (Ex.P-4) were registered and the matter was then taken up for investigation. Police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-6. After issuing summons to the witnesses, inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-9. From the place of occurrence, a split bamboo stick, one matchbox emitting the smell of kerosene, approximately 100 grams of wet soil smelling of kerosene and plain soil, a partially burnt piece of sari found beneath the dead body, pieces of cloth and about 3 200 grams of ashes being remnants of the body, and a partially burnt portion of straw/hay from the courtyard of the deceased’s house were seized as per seizure memos (Ex.P-10). 3. During the course of investigation, notices were issued to witnesses Chandrahans Sahu and Girish Sahu (PW-1) for recording the statement of accused Chiranjeevi in their presence. In the presence of the said witnesses, the memorandum statement (Ex.P-2) of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the murder of deceased Revati Bai was recorded, and pursuant to his disclosure, a white plastic jerrycan of five litres capacity containing approximately 30 ml of kerosene was recovered from his house and seized in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-3. The dead body of deceased Revati Bai was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, Dhamtari, where Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-09) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave his report vide Ex.P-20 noticing 2 to 3 burn injuries on face, neck, breast, upper part of abdomen, shoulder, both thigh, both leg below knee to foot in the, 5 to 6 burn injuries present on pelvic right lumber region bone, muscles exposed, loops of intestines burnt and lacerated, red line demarcation present on 2 to 3 burn area, and the autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death of deceased to be burn injuries. It is further the case of the 4 prosecution that during investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their versions, the accused was arrested. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical examination. 4. After completing due investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was filed against the accused/respondent before the jurisdictional Court followed by charge under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The accused/respondent however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondent pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence, the accused himself examined as DW-1. 6. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State. 7. Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has committed grave errors of law and fact in passing the 5 impugned judgment of acquittal, which is illegal, improper, and unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Court erroneously disbelieved the prosecution case that the respondent/accused, acting with common intention and motive, first strangulated the deceased and thereafter poured kerosene upon her body and set her ablaze. The learned Trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the clear and consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 Girish Kumar Sahu, PW-2 Raghunandan, PW-4 Dhaniram, and PW-6 Nirmohit Sahu, who categorically stated that the respondent/accused committed the murder of the deceased, including the specific admission made by PW-6 during cross-examination regarding throttling. The Trial Court further ignored the cogent medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-9), who conducted the post-mortem examination and opined that the caused of death of deceased was burn injuries, and the Doctor has also confirmed the presence of kerosene on the body of the deceased, a fact duly corroborated by the Forensic Science Laboratory report. Learned State counsel further submits that the learned Trial Judge has mis- appreciated the evidence on record, overlooked material facts, and adopted an erroneous approach in evaluating the prosecution case. The prosecution had proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt for offences 6 punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and all mandatory procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure were duly complied with during investigation. The acquittal, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmities and calls for interference. 8. No one appeared on behalf of the accused/respondent. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the said the said charges. 11. It is an admitted position before the learned Trial Court that deceased Rewti Yadav was mother of accused/respondent Chiranjivi Yadav, and they both were living together in village Loharasi in the same house. 12. Girish Kumar Sahu (PW-1) has stated that the police had recorded the memorandum statement of accused vide Ex.P- 2 and pursuant to the memorandum statement, police had seized kerosene container vide Ex.P-3. The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted that the accused had told the police in his presence that he brought kerosene and a matchbox from 7 his house, wrapped a green plastic sheet around a bamboo stick, poured kerosene on it to make a torch, and carried it along with the kerosene container to the school premises, where he poured kerosene on dead body of his mother Revati Bai and set her on fire. This witness has admitted this suggestion of defence that when he reached police station, the police had already brought the accused before 2-3 hours. Further, in para 15, this witness had admitted this suggestion of defence that in his presence, the accused did not tell the police that he had wrapped a green plastic sheet lying there around a bamboo stick kept in the house, lit it on fire, and carried the matchbox and kerosene to the dead body. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not stated that he kept the kerosene container in the house. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had not stated about keeping the kerosene container on the chaura constructed in the courtyard. The witness further stated that when the accused was taken from the police station to his house, no one was present. He has admitted that when the police went to the house of accused first time, he was not with them. He has also admitted that when police went to the house of accused with them then the police took the accused to the place where kerosene container was kept. Further, in para 17, this witness has admitted this suggestion that after reaching the house of accused, the 8 police had brought the kerosene container and upon being asked, the accused lifted the container and handed it over to the police. 13. The evidence of Girish Kumar Sahu (PW-1), the memorandum and seizure witness, is full of material contradictions and infirmities. He was declared hostile and his testimony regarding the memorandum statement and seizure of kerosene container is inconsistent, doubtful and does not inspire confidence. His admissions clearly indicate that the accused was already in police custody prior to the alleged memorandum and that the kerosene container was recovered at the instance of police, thereby rendering the recovery highly suspicious and legally unreliable. 14. Raghunandan (PW-2) has stated that after hearing the cries of boys, he along with Santu Yadav, Lacchan Yadav and the people present there wen to the place of incident. The dead body was lying face down and smell of kerosene emitting from the body. Thereafter, he lodged the dehati nalishi of the incident vide Ex.P-4 and admits his signature on ‘A to A’ part. This witness has also admitted his signature on dehati merg intimation (Ex.P-5) on ‘A to A’ part, spot map (Ex.P-6) on ‘A to A’ part, spot map prepared by patwari (Ex.P-7) on ‘A to A’ part, inquest notice (Ex.P-8) on ‘A to A’ part, inquest (Ex.P-9) on ‘A to A’ part and seizure memo (Ex.P-10). This witness has also stated that thereafter he came to know that 9 deceased Revti Bai had scolded and slapped the accused as he had developd rampage in the engagement ceremony of his girlfriend Nandani due to which, the accused killed his mother by strangulating her neck and thereafter took her dead body near boundary wall of school and set her body on fire. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted this suggestion of defence that on the date of incident, he had seen the accused at 4.00 PM near his house and thereafter he had not seen him. He has admitted that when accused used to talk in his house, his voice reaches his house, and on the nigh of incident, he had not heard any argument between the accused and and his deceased mother. He has also stated that had there been an argument between the accused and his mother, he would have definitely heard this. In para 9, this witness has specifically admitted that based on hearsay, he is stating that the accused strangulated the deceased and set her on fire near the school boundary wall and kill her. 15. From the evidence of Raghunandan (PW-2), it is evident that he does not support the prosecution case in material particulars. Although he spoke about the condition of the dead body and formal aspects of investigation, his allegation that the accused strangulated the deceased and set her on fire is admittedly based on hearsay. In his cross- examination, he categorically admitted that he neither saw 10 the incident nor heard any quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the night of occurrence, despite being a nearby resident. 16. Sohan Yadav (PW-3), Daniram (PW-4), Devendra Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and Nirmohit Sahu (PW-6), all have stated that the accused had crated rampage in the engagement ceremony of daughter of Dani Ram Sahu, and thereafter they heard that due to the said incident, accused killer his mother. 17. The testimonies of Sohan Yadav (PW-3), Daniram (PW-4), Devendra Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and Nirmohit Sahu (PW-6) are also hearsay in nature and do not constitute substantive evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. Their statements merely reflect what they had heard from others and do not establish any direct or circumstantial link between the accused and the crime. 18. Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-9) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-20 and opined that the dead body had sustained 98% burn injuries and the burn injuries were antemortem in nature. In cross-examination, the autopsy surgeon admitted that when the deceased was set on fire, she was alive. 19. Though the medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-9) 11 establishes that the deceased sustained 98% antemortem burn injuries and was alive when set on fire, the medical evidence by itself does not fix culpability upon the accused in absence of reliable and cogent ocular or circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances necessary to sustain a conviction is conspicuously incomplete. 20. The accused/respondent examined himself as defence witness and stated that on the date date of incident 10.12.2017 at evening, he had gone to his friend Sohan Yadav’s house to attend the Chhatti programme, and after having dinner, he came to his house at night. He has stated that when he reached house, his deceased mother was present in the house and she was sleeping and thereafter, he also went to sleep. He has also stated that police had taken him alone to his house. The police were investigating and he was standing there. At the behest of police, he hold the kerosene box and place it in front of them. 21. The defence of accused though not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it appears plausible and gains support from the admissions of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of investigation and recovery. The prosecution has failed to rule out reasonable doubt arising from contradictions, hearsay evidence and procedural lapses. 22. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated oral and 12 documentary evidence and rightly find that in the present case no clinching or legally admissible evidence proved by the prosecution against accused/respondent. There is no last seen evidence in the case and the memorandum & seizure witnesses candidly admitted that the police personally searched the kerosene box. Further, the dead body of deceased was found near school and not in the house. So, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges on the ground that chain of circumstantial evidence was not so complete to bring home the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law or fact while acquitting the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The judgment of acquittal is based on a proper evaluation of evidence and does not suffer from perversity or misapplication of legal principles. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter 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, 13 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 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." 24. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondent particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the 14 one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 25. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed, and the acquittal appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.02.04 16:43:55 +0530