1 2026:CGHC:4579-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 335 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa (Now Sakti) (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus Phulchand Gupta @ Phulu S/o Chhedilal Gupta, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Basti Baradwar, Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, 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. 28.01.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC and ST Act), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 24/2023, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities, 1989. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 3. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the record is that there was a love affair of about 15 years between the accused/respondent and deceased Gayatri Banjare, the wife of the complainant-Anjori Lal Banjare. The accused had two children due to which the accused was refusing to keep the deceased with him. For this reason, on 23.01.2023, the accused told the deceased that he would visit his elder brother Khemlal Gupta’s house to see the children, the deceased Gayatri insisted on going with him and then the accused/respondent took the deceased on a motorcycle from Agrasen Chowk, Sakti 50 meters inside the forest from the Hanuman temple located on top of Palgada hill, and murdered her by hitting her with a stone at around 2:00 p.m. The complainant Anjori Lal Banjare on 26.01.2023 at Police Station- Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) lodged complaint against the accused/respondent under Crime No. 57/2023 for offence under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. During the course of investigation, the accused/respondent Phulchand Gupta was taken into custody and a memorandum of his statement was recorded and seizure of articles have been made, caste certificate of the deceased was also seized which shows that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste community. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of charges punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the State/Appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, erroneous and perverse. The learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the conduct of the respondent proves ill-intention of the respondent, therefore, he ought to be convicted appropriately by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the police has registered the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) against the accused/respondent and the prosecution had fully tried to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses have categorically stated against the accused/respondent, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave perverse finding and acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and material available on record and also failed to appreciate the intention of the accused/respondent while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was a clear chain of evidence and sufficient material available on record, but the learned trial Court wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent. The findings of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 4 6. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the accused/respondent and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges. 8. It is evident that as the prosecution failed to prove the memorandum and seizure beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence merely establishes, at best, that the deceased and the accused/respondent were in communication via mobile phone. It is further apparent from the memorandum witnesses that the police informed at about 6:00 a.m. that the dead body of the deceased was lying at Palgada Pahad and they were called by the police and the memorandum of the accused/respondent was recorded vide Ex. P/14A at about 9:00 a.m. As such, the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the dead body was recovered on the basis of memorandum of the accused/respondent. It is clear that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused, as such by giving him benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent. 5 9. 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.” 10. In view of above cited judgment, and in the present case also it is clear that the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges levelled against him. 11. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself, without issuing notice to the accused/respondent. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge U.K. Raju