1 2026:CGHC:6946-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.65 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Incharge Police Outpost Lodam, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - Jatroo Ram S/o Alijan Aged About 40 Years Caste Munda, R/o Village Kulda, Police Outpost Lodam, Police Station Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy. GA For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey J. 09/02/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Session Judge, Jashpur in ST No.73/2016, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of IPC. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that upon receiving information regarding death of the deceased Mangri Bai, the police station concerned registered merg and the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy and the cause of death was opined to be cardio respiratory arrest. During investigation, the respondent was found guilty of the said crime and he allegedly committed murder of his own mother. Thereafter a case was registered against the respondent and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused respondent of the aforesaid charges. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/State 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 respondents. There were only minor omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which should have been ignored by the learned Trial Court but the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence in its true perspective and has wrongly acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges. 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. 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondent under Section 302 of IPC. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges. 7. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that the deceased Mangri Bai was the mother of the respondent and she died on 07.08.2016. 8. PW-12 Dr. Ashutosh Tirki conducted postmortem of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The defence has also not objected regarding the same, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 9. PW-1 Ajit Ram Bhagat stated that the accused is his brother-in- law. He stated that the deceased Mangri Bai died due to some illness. He admitted his signatures on FIR (Ex-P/1) on A to A part of the same but he stated that he has no information about the 4 incident. He also admitted his signatures in the inquest notice (Ex-P/2) and inquest notice (Ex-P/3), whereas the spot map is Ex-P/4, memorandum is Ex-P/5, seizure is Ex-P/6 and map is Ex-P/7 but he denied all proceedings before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that on the date of incident, Jitendra came to him and told that deceased Mongri Bai has died but he denied this suggestion of prosecution that the accused stated that he killed his mother. He admitted this suggestion of defence that the accused is habitual drinker and in drinking condition, he says anything. 10. PW-2 Smt. Bhikhani Bai, sister of accused and daughter of deceased, has also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. The other witnesses Smt. Jhariyon Bai (PW-3), Dilip Kumar Bhagat (PW-4), Jagdish Ram (PW-5), Sevak Bhagat (PW-6) and Pradip Kumar Singh (PW-8) all the villagers have also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile and denied all suggestions of prosecution in their cross-examination. 11. The learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and found that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the accused/respondent killed his mother. It is also clear from FSL report that no human blood was found in the Article-C wood, the murder weapon, as such memorandum and seizure is also of no 5 help to the prosecution. The witnesses of memorandum and seizure have also not supported the prosecution case so the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. 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:- (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.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case, it is 6 clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, 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 and looking to the limited scope of interference in an acquittal appeal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 14. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Radhakishan Agrawal Judge Judge Nirala