1 2026:CGHC:25058-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 360 of 2012 1. Chandrasen @ Chandru aged about 20 years, S/o Mohanlal Baghel, R/o Pathariya, P.S. Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Suraj, aged 22 years, S/o Mohanlal Bagel, R/o Pathariya, P.S.- Pathariya, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa, aged 20 years, S/o Banshi Banare, R/o Madku Deep, P.S.-Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Santdas, aged 26 years, S/o Budhram Kosle, R/o Raurpur, P.S.- Bemetara, District- Bilaspur.(C.G.). 5. Santosh Kumar @ Chirai@Chotu, aged 22 years, S/o Mohanlal Baghel, R/o Atarra, P.S. Bilha, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Manoj Kumar, aged 20 years, S/o Salik Ram Tondon, R/o Indrapur, Tifra, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.23 14:37:19 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.06.2026 1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 117/2009 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable as under: Conviction under Section Sentences Section 147 of the IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months R.I. Section 148 of the IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months R.I. Section 323/149 of the IPC S.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month S.I. Section 302/149 of the IPC (two times) Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 year R.I. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Learned State counsel submits that in compliance with the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has submitted a compliance report dated 18.06.2026 regarding the execution of the 3 Permanent Non-Bailable Warrant issued against appellant No.5, namely Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu. 3. Perusal of the compliance report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and the Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Bilaspur reveals that pursuant to the Permanent Non-Bailable Warrant issued against appellant No.5, namely Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu, extensive efforts were undertaken to trace and apprehend him. The police authorities conducted inquiries at his last known address, examined his relatives including his brother, sister-in- law and other family members, made inquiries from the village Sarpanch, former Sarpanch, Kotwar, neighbours and residents of adjoining villages, verified local records and also carried out searches through available electronic databases; however, no information regarding the present whereabouts of the appellant could be ascertained. The report further indicates that the appellant and his family had allegedly left their native village several years ago and his current residence remains unknown. Consequently, the warrant could not be executed and has been returned unserved along with the relevant proceedings and supporting documents. 4. It appears from the record that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri (as he then was) and Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput (one of us), vide judgment dated 02.08.2023, 4 adjudicated the present criminal appeal. By the said judgment, co-accused Suraj and Santdas were convicted for the offences charged against them, whereas co-accused Chandrasen @ Chandru, Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa and Manoj Kumar were acquitted of all charges. 5. Further perusal of the record goes to show that the convicted accused Suraj challenged the aforesaid judgment dated 02.08.2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11913 of 2023. The said Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.05.2024, thereby affirming the conviction recorded against the said accused. 6. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of appellant No.5, namely Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu, submits that when the appeal was heard and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 02.08.2023, he had appeared on behalf of appellant Nos.1 to 4. Since the appeal on behalf of appellant No.5 could not be considered at that time owing to his absence and non-execution of the warrant issued against him, he has consented to be Amicus Curiae to argue the present appeal on behalf of the said appellant and assist this Court for its final disposal. 7. In view of the compliance report indicating that despite diligent efforts, the whereabouts of appellant No.5 could not be traced 5 and the warrant issued against him remains unexecuted, and further considering that the appeal arising out of the same judgment has already been adjudicated upon by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the other co-accused, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal, which has remained pending since the year 2012, cannot be permitted to remain pending indefinitely merely on account of the non- availability of the appellant. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court proceeds to hear and decide the present appeal on behalf of appellant No.5, namely Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu, after hearing Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, learned Amicus Curiae, and the learned State counsel. 8. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-1-2009 Kamhan (PW-1) and Ajay Soni (PW-6) lodged separate merg intimation in police station Civil Lines wherein it has been stated that Raju Chelkhar (since deceased) was the son of Kamhan (PW-1) and Sanjay Soni (since deceased) was the brother of Ajay Soni (PW-6). Deceased Sanjay Soni went to Indrapuri, Tifra with the deceased Raju Chelkar. It has also been mentioned that Suraj along with his friends committed the murder of both the deceased persons namely. Sanjay Soni & Raju Chelkar, by assaulting, with the help of stone, on their heads. On the basis of said merg intimation, FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered and further investigation was carried out. The witnesses were given notice 6 vide Ex.P/11 of merg enquiry vide Ex.P/12 & P/12A inquest was prepared and vide Ex.P/15 spot map was prepared. The accused persons were arrested and thereafter their memorandum statements were recorded and recovery of weapons from the appellants were effected. Both the dead bodies were sent for postmortem. The postmortem report was given by Dr. Jubed Khan (PW-14) vide Ex.P/29 & Ex.P/30. Doctor was also given the query of seized articles. The seized articles were sent to FSL, Raipur for its examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 9. After committal the case was placed before the concerned Sessions Judge, who made over the case to the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge for trial. During trial the appellants/accused abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 10. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents and 04 documents were exhibited by the accused. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they pleaded false implication. 11. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellants have committed the offence and convicted & sentenced them as mentioned above. However, acquitted the 7 accused namely, (1) Kalesh (2) Manoj Sonwani and (3) Ghoso @ Tameshwar. Thus, this appeal. 12. Learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for appellant No.5, namely Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu, submits that the case of the present appellant stands on the same footing as that of co-accused Chandrasen @ Chandru, Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa and Manoj Kumar, who have already been acquitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2023. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence does not attribute any specific overt act to the present appellant and that the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in respect of the aforesaid co-accused equally apply to the case of the present appellant. Learned counsel further draws attention to paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 02.08.2023, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench observed that eye-witness PW-7 Manoj Bidikar had not stated that the said accused persons had assaulted the deceased and had categorically deposed that, except Suraj (A/2) and Santdas (A/4), the remaining assailants had covered their faces. The Co-ordinate Bench further found that the prosecution sought to connect the said accused persons with the crime only on the basis of memorandum statements and recoveries allegedly made at their instance; however, the seizure witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case and material discrepancies emerged from their evidence. On such appreciation of evidence, the Co- 8 ordinate Bench extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the aforesaid co-accused. It is, therefore, contended that since the evidence against the present appellant is identical in nature, he is also entitled to the same benefit. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 02.08.2023 has observed in its para No.24 as follows: “So far as appellants Chandrasen @ Chandru (A/1), Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa (A/3) and Manoj Kumar (A/6) are concerned, the eye witness PW-7 Manoj Bidikar has not stated that these appellants have assaulted the deceased persons. He has categorically stated that except Suraj (A/2) and Santdas (A/4) rest of the assailants have covered their faces. The prosecution has relied upon their memorandum statement and recovery of the weapons at their instance to connect them with the crime. Chandrasen @ Chandru (A/1) gave a memorandum statement Ex-P/3 under section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 on 02.02.2009. At his instance a rod was recovered from his house vide Ex-P/4. In order to prove his memorandum and seizure, the prosecution has examined Kaju Chelkar (PW-4) and Vidyanand (PW-9). Kaju Chelkar (PW-4) in his examination in chief stated that he knows Chandrasen @ Chandru (A/1). He did not know him earlier and seen him in the police station. He further stated that in his presence Chandrasen @Chandru (A/1) has informed about keeping the rod in the house which was reduced in writing by police. He admits his signature on memorandum (Ex-P/3). He further states that the police has recovered the said 9 rod from the house of Chandramohan on being brought by him and prepared a seizure memo (Ex- P/4). He admits his signature on seizure memo (Ex- P/4). In his cross examination he states that he is the real brother of deceased Raju Chelkar. After 6-7 days of incident he signed on the memorandum (Ex-P/3) and seizure memo (Ex-P/4) . The article were shown to him in police station and he signed on it. Police personnel called me because article being seized. On being called by police he went to police station from home. Alongwith him Vidyanand Gupta (PW-9) also went to police station. He further stated that it is true to say that he has signed on memorandum (Ex-P/ 3) and seizure memo (Ex-P/4) in the police station. However, he denied the police has not made any seizure or no memorandum of accused person was recorded. Similar statement was given by him with regard to memorandum statement (Ex-P/5) of Suraj (A/2) and recovery of stick from his house vide seizure memo (Ex-P/6) . Similar statement was given by him with regard to memorandum statement (Ex- P/7) of Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa (A / 2) and recovery of bamboo stick from his house vide seizure memo (Ex-P/8) Vidyanand (PW-9) is examined as another witness of memorandum and seizure of murder weapons at the instance of Chandrasen @ Chandru (A / 1) Suraj (A / 2) Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa (A / 3). He has not supported the case of prosecution. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. He admits his signature on the memorandum statement and seizure memo of Chandrasen @ Chandru (A / 1) and Suraj (A / 2) Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa (A / 3). He stated that he has signed on it in the police station.” 10 13. Learned State counsel fairly submits that he is unable to dispute the factual position that the case of the present appellant is substantially similar to that of the co-accused who have already been acquitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2023. He further submits that the evidence available against the present appellant is of the same nature as that considered by the Co-ordinate Bench while extending the benefit of doubt to the aforesaid co- accused and leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. 14. Learned State counsel further submits that though the conviction of co-accused Suraj, as recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 02.08.2023, has attained finality upon dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.11913 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.05.2024, the role attributed to the present appellant stands on a different footing and is comparable to that of the acquitted co-accused rather than that of the convicted accused Suraj and Santdas. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 16. From a perusal of the judgment dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is evident that the conviction of appellants Suraj (A/2) and Santdas (A/4) was sustained primarily on the basis of the cogent and reliable 11 testimony of eye-witness Manoj Bidikar (PW-7), who had specifically identified them as the assailants. At the same time, the Co-ordinate Bench acquitted co-accused Chandrasen @ Chandru (A/1), Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa (A/3) and Manoj Kumar (A/6) by holding that PW-7 had not attributed any specific role to them and had categorically stated that, except Suraj and Santdas, the remaining assailants had covered their faces. The Court further found that the prosecution had sought to connect the said accused persons with the crime solely on the basis of memorandum statements and recoveries allegedly made at their instance, but the evidence relating to such memorandum statements and recoveries was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and did not inspire confidence. 17. Further, no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the prosecution so as to differentiate the case of appellant No.5 Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu from that of the co-accused who have already been acquitted. The learned State counsel has also not been able to dispute that the evidence available against the present appellant is of the same nature as that considered by the Co-ordinate Bench while extending the benefit of doubt to Chandrasen @ Chandru (A/1), Sanjeev Kumar @ Bilwa (A/3) and Manoj Kumar (A/6). 18. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appellant is also entitled to the same benefit 12 which has already been extended to the similarly situated co- accused. The principle of parity and consistency in judicial adjudication requires that where the evidence against an accused is identical to that against co-accused who have been acquitted, a different view ought not to be taken in the absence of any distinguishing material. 19. Accordingly, the appeal preferred in respect to appellant No.5, namely, Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, insofar as it relates to appellant No.5 Santosh Kumar @ Chirai @ Chotu, is set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges by extending him the benefit of doubt. 20. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender, however, keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of BNSS), his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain effective for a period of six months from today along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Permanent non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant on 12.01.2026 stands cancelled. 13 21. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to sent the trial Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet