1 2026:CGHC:25623-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2284 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rambai Choudhari W/o Ghursai Choudhari Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Dongariya, Police Station- Pendra, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Rukhmani Choudhari W/o Dhane Choudhari Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhalaur, District- Manendragarh At Present Resident Of Village- Dongariya, Police Station- Pendra, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 3 - Bhimsen Choudhari S/o Rammilan Choudhari Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Dongariya, Police Station- Pendra, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 4 - Fulchand Choudhari S/o Ghursai Choudhari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Dongariya, Police Station- Pendra, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) --- Appellants) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Tiwari and Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. 2 CRA No. 6 of 2026 1 - Ravi Choudhari S/o Fulchand Choudhari, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Khairi, Singhpur Venkatnagar, Police Station- Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) At Present R/o Village- Dongariya, Police Station- Pendra, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 2 - Ramprasad Choudhari S/o Besahan Choudhari, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Khairi, Singhpur Venkatnagar, Police Station- Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) At Present R/o Village- Dongariya, Police Station- Pendra, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai (Amicus Curiae) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board P er Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/06/2026 1. Heard Ms. Nirupama Bajpai as well as Mr. Pritam Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants {in Cr.A. No. 2284/2025} and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants {in Cr.A. No. 6/2026} as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent. 2. Today, these matters are listed for hearing on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of learned 3 counsel appearing for the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally. IA No. 3/2025 is an application for permission to engage counsel for the appellants. The application is ordered as prayed for and Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate is permitted to appear and argue on behalf of the appellants in Cr.A. No. 2284/2025. 3. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 197/2021 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, by which each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Sentence (Rigorous) 147 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 2 years - - 148 IPC 3 years - - 302/149 IPC Life Rs. 1200/- 1 years 4. There were total 08 accused in this case out of which, one of the accused namely Kanhaiya Choudhari expired during the trial. One of the accused was a child in conflict with law, who has been tried separately. The present appeals pertains to the accused Smt. Rambai Choudhari, Smt. Rukhmani Choudhari, Bhimsen Choudhari, Fulchand Choudhari, Ravi Choudhari and Ramprasad Choudhari. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 21.02.2021, the complainant Sarvesh Manhar (PW-8) lodged a report at Police Station Kota stating that he and his family had gone on 21.02.2021 to visit the Marhi Mata Temple situated at Bhanwartank. After offering prayers at the temple, they cooked food there in the afternoon and at about 5:00 4 p.m. were sitting and eating food with their family members. During this time, some persons who were eating food nearby were quarreling amongst themselves. When the complainant's side objected and asked them not to quarrel, 7–8 accused persons assaulted the complainant's side with sticks and an iron cooking implement (Kevcha). Due to the injuries sustained, Karan Ratre (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) from the complainant's side died and other persons also received injuries. On the basis of the complainant's report, an offence was registered at Police Station Kota and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, a spot map (Exhibit P-32) was prepared. Inquest proceedings over the dead body were conducted. An application for post-mortem examination was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted at CHC Kota. On inspection of the place of occurrence and on the basis of a seized receipt fragment, the temple committee receipt book, photographs, etc., accused Ravi Choudhari, Kanhaiya Choudhari, Ramprasad Choudhari were taken into custody and produced before the Executive Magistrate, Belgahna. The complainant identified accused Ravi Choudhari, Kanhaiya Choudhari and Ramprasad Choudhari. Identification proceedings were conducted in the presence of the complainant and witnesses. On the basis of the memorandam of Ravi Choudhari and Kanhaiya Choudhari, it was found that Bhimsen Choudhary, Phoolchand Choudhari, Smt. Rambai Choudhari and Smt. Rukhmani Choudhari had also participated in the assault; therefore, their memorandum statements were recorded. On the basis of the memorandum statements of the accused persons, two wooden sticks used in the incident were seized. Statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and examined. The accused persons were arrested and witness statements were reduced into writing. 5 6. After completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kota, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 232/2021. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessiosn where it was registered as S.T. No. 197/2021. 7. Charges were framed against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 302, 302/149 and 506-B of the IPC. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses namely Santosh Kumar Rathore (PW-1), Dr. Sandeep Dwivedi (PW-2), Harprasad (PW-3), Aman Khandekar (PW-4), Rekha Samundre (PW-5), Harendra Kumar Manhar (PW-6), Jittu Kurre (PW-7), Sarvesh Manhar (PW-8), Devdas Ratre (PW-9), Indrapal Divakar (PW- 10), Kedar Banjare (PW-11), Vijay Kumar Joshi (PW-12), Lal Ji Tandiya (PW-15), Suraj Rajak (PW-16), Pitambar Porte (PW-17), Mulchand Soni (PW-18), Virendra Bahadur Singh (PW-19), Kamleshwar Singh (PW- 20), Shivam Pandey (PW-21), Hemlal Prajapati (PW-22), Onkar Prasad Banjare (PW-23), Dinesh Kumar chandra (PW-24), Ajay Ware (PW-25) and Dr. Avdhesh Kumar Sahu (PW-26) and exhibited as many as 46 exhibits and three Articles. In support of their, the appellants got the police statement of Rekha Samundre and Suraj Rajak, exhibited as Exhibits D/1 and D/2. 9. The statement of the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned trial Court wherein they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Either they expressed their ignorance or denied the questions. 10. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, has 6 convicted the appellant as detailed in the opening paragraph. Hence, these appeals. 11. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Pritam Tiwari learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants submit that the accused party and the complainant party had gone for a picnic and while preparing food, a scuffle took place. There was no pre-planning and the appellants were not even armed with any weapon. The learned trial Court has failed to consider that the witness of test identification parade has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. Based on the memorandum statement, the appellants have been implicated in this case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and only one witness, Rekha Samudre (PW-5), identified the accused persons for the first time in Court and stated that they had committed the offence. The remaining witnesses refused to identify the accused persons. Even Sarvesh Manhar (PW-8) and Lalji Tandiya (PW-15), through whom the police had conducted the test identification proceedings, did not identify the accused persons before the Court. The prosecution had not conducted any identification proceedings through witness Rekha Samudre (PW-1). Therefore, when for the first time in Court she identified the accused persons, such identification cannot be relied upon for connecting the accused with the crime. The place where the incident took place was a picnic spot and there was a large gathering of people and among those large number, the prosecution witness could not have properly identified the real assailants. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and there is no material on record to connect the appellants with the offence in question and as 7 such, the order passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants deserves to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges. 12. On the other hand, Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the learned trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence after proper appreciation of the materials available on record which deserves no interference and as such, these appeals be dismissed. Minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses cannot be termed as fatal for the prosecution so as to grant acquittal to the appellants. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 14. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which has been answered in affirmative by the learned trial Court, based on the postmortem report and the deposition of the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem. 15. Dr. Sandeep Dwivedi (PW-02) who had conducted the postmortem, stated that on 22.02.2021, Police Constable Anil of Police Station Kota produced the dead body for post-mortem examination. Upon examination, vide his report (Exhibit P/1), he found that externally, the body was in a state of rigor mortis. Both hands and legs were straight and parallel to each other. Blood was coming out from both nostrils. Both eyes and mouth were partially open. There was a raised and swollen injury over the occipital bone of the skull. No fecal matter or semen was found on the undergarments. On examination of skull and spine, the meninges of the brain were swollen and compressed. Internal subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage was present in the brain. Clotted blood 8 was present in both chambers of the heart. Undigested food material was present in the stomach. The nature of death appeared to be homicidal and the cause of death was excessive internal bleeding resulting from severe injuries to the internal organs of the brain. The time of death was approximately 18 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. This aspect has not been disputed even by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and as such, we affirm the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court that the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. 16. Now the question remains for consideration for this Court is whether the appellants are the assailants who committed murder of the deceased? 17. Even as per the prosecution story, on the date of incident, a large number of people gathered in the area where the incident took place, for visiting the temple and for picnic purpose. There were different groups of people preparing food at various places. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellants were quarelling among each other and hurling abuses which was objected to by the complainant party stating that there were ladies and they should not hurl abuses upon which verbal duel took place. Later, it escalated into a fight using wooden sticks and and iron Kevcha. 18. According to the identification memo (Exhibit P/10 and P/11), the test identification parade was conducted in presence of Executive Magistrate Belgahna, and Sarvesh Manhar (PW-8) identified Ramprasad Choudhari, Kanhaiya Choudhari and Ravi Choudhari in presence of witnesses Lalji Tandiya (PW-15) and Hemlal Prajapati (PW-22). Similarly, Sarvesh Manhar (PW-8) also identified Fulchand Choudhari. However, this fact has been denied by Sarvesh Manhar (PW-8) in his 9 deposition before the learned trial Court. 19. According to the prosecution, there are three injured witnesses namely Rekha Samundre (PW-5), Harendra Kumar Manhar (PW-6) and Jittu Kurre (PW-7). The injuries sustained by Rekha Samundre and Harendra Kumar Manhar are reported to be simple in nature as is evident from Exhibit P/44 and P/45. However, the injury sustained (Exhibit P/46) by Jittu Kurrey (PW-7) is stated to be grievous. 20. Only Rekha Samundre (PW-5) has deposed in support of the prosecution whereas the other two witnesses, namely Harendra Kumar Manhar (PW-6) and Sarvesh Manhar (PW-7) have turned hostile. Rekha Samundre has identified the accused persons for the first time before the learned trial Court and she was not the part of the test identification parade. Harendar Kumar Manhar (PW-6) stated before the learned trial Court that he cannot identify the accused present in the Court and even on showing the arrest memo in which the photographs of the accused were pasted, denied to identify them. He is one of the injured eye witness. Similar is the case with other injured eye witness namely Jittu Kurre (PW-6). He has also been declared hostile as he could not identify the accused persons. 21. The allegation against the appellants/convicts are that the deceased was done to death after a scuffle between the two parties and the deceased was assaulted by stick and a Kevcha, which is an article used for cooking and is made up of iron. There is no specific allegation against any appellant as to who assaulted the deceased or the injured person with which weapon. Even the injured eye witnesses namely Harendra Kumar Manhar (PW-6) and Jittu Kurre (PW-7) have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and have even denied that any test 10 identification parade was conducted. Rekha Samundre (PW-5), though has tried to state that she could identify the accused persons, but she was not the part of the test identification parade and has identified the accused/appellants for the first time before the learned trial Court. However, she could not tell the name of any of the appellant or that which appellant caused injuries to which person. 22. Ajay Ware, Inspector (PW-25) has deposed that he had seized an iron Kevcha measuring 77 cms. In length which was seized from one of the accused, a child in conflict with law, and the seizure memo was annexed with the documents of the trial of the said child. There is no FSL report so as to indicate the presence of human blood on the Kevcha or the wooden sticks seized by the police. There is even no query report of the Doctor which could have thrown some light on the aspect whether the said weapon could have been used to cause injuries to the deceased. 23. On careful consideration of the materials available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which the appellants had been charged. There is no incriminating material available in this case which could connect the appellants with the crime in question. The alleged identification made by the witness Rekha Samundre (PW-5) also appears to be doubtful as when two of the injured witnesses have denied to identify the assailants, especially when one of the witness sustained grievous injury. The absence of FSL report also goes against the prosecution case. 24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court needs 11 interference and as such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2025 is hereby set aside and the above appellants/convicts are acquitted of the charges. 25. Resultantly, these appeal stand allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 26. The appellants/convict are reported to be in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. {Section 481 of the BNSS}, the accused-appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount before the court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months 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 appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 27. Registry is directed to transmit the trial court record along with a copy of this order to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.29 17:54:40 +0530