1 2026:CGHC:13909-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 126 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus Ramji S/o Jayan Singh Rajput, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Karamdih, Police Staion Vijaypur, District Palamu (Bihar) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System Software.) For State/Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 24/03/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.08.2017 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 134/1998, whereby the Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 accused/respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 450, 395, 412 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment and record of the leaned trial Court is that on the night of 27.08.1986, the accused persons unlawfully entered the house of the complainant, Ramdev, while armed, and committed robbery of jewellery, clothes, and cash amounting to Rs. 2,310/-. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, Crime No. 59/1986 was registered at Police Station Kusmi. During the course of investigation, upon the arrest of co- accused, Bhikhu Ram, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 450, 395, 412, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions, where accused Bhikhu Ram was acquitted. At that time, the remaining three accused persons were absconding. Subsequently, the said three accused were apprehended and the case against them was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur to the Sessions Court on 28.09.2013. The matter was later transferred to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, where those accused were also acquitted. Thereafter, a standing arrest warrant (bemiyadi warrant) was issued against the present accused/respondent Ramji by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, which was further endorsed by the Sessions Court. In execution of the said warrant, the accused was arrested by Police Station Kusmi and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who forwarded the accused along with the case record to the Court of Sessions. Upon appearance before the Sessions Court, charges under Sections 450, 395, and 412 of the Indian Penal 3 Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the present accused/respondent of all charges levelled against him. Hence, this appeal filed by the State/appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the judgment, finding, order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has committed error of law in not disbelieving the statement of the complainant who is the victim of the crime. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the findings on record and has arrived to an erroneous findings. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the learned trial Court has committed error of law in acquitting the respondent/accused. The instant crime has been committed by the accused/respondent in connivance with the other co- accused persons had done dacoity. The learned trial Court ought to have further seen that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 395, 412 of IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and ought to have convicted the respondent thereunder. The learned trial Court has failed to take into account of gravity of the offences and the conduct of the accused. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that all the mandatory procedures as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, were duly complied with by the investigating 4 authorities. The learned trial Court has denied this fact that the police party has seized the rifles, cartridge, detonator etc. from the respondent and other co-accused persons in presence of the witnesses. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. None present for the respondent despite service of notice. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 450, 395, 412 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of all charges on this ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. It is also apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the date of offence is 27.08.1986 and the charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused on 15.05.1998 and at that time, the present accused/ respondent Ramji was absconding. The learned trial Court conducted trial of the accused Bhiku Ram and passed judgment on 13.02.2002 and acquitted him of all charges. The other two accused Udit Vishwakarma and Radha Pandey were arrested in 2013 and trial was conducted against both the accused persons and the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.06.2016 acquitted the co-accused persons. The accused/respondent Ramji was arrested in 2017 in execution of the standing arrest warrant (bemiyadi warrant) and the 5 learned trial Court framed charges against him for offence punishable under Sections 450, 395, 412 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.08.2017 acquitted him of all the aforesaid charges levelled against him. 8. Upon comprehensive evaluation of record of the learned trial Court it is evident that the complainant Ramdeo Sao was not examined before the learned trial Court and the other witnesses have failed to identify the accused/respondent. It is evident from the record that the alleged incident occurred on 27.08.1996, while the trial against the accused/respondent was conducted in the year 2017. Upon a careful and detailed appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused/respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted of all the aforesaid charges levelled against him. 9. 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 reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252 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; 6 (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.” 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju