1 2026:CGHC:4652-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 94 of 2023 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus • Basant Kumar Sahu S/o Gangaram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sounga, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For State/Petitioner : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. 1. The present CRMP has been filed by the State/appellant seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Link Court, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Session Case DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 No.49/2020, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of charges punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2020 at about 23:45 O'clock in night accused Basant Kumar Sahu appeared in the Police Station and informed that he killed his wife assaulting by stick and kept the dead body in front of his house. The Police registered the case and took the matter under investigation. After preparing Panchnama, the dead body was sent for post mortem. The Police recorded the statement of the witnesses and memorandum statement of the accused. After completing investigation the charge-sheet was filed and the respondent was put to face charges before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/State. 3. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses PW-3 (Itwari Ram Sahu) and PW-5 (Bhushan Lal Sahu) have clearly stated against the respondent accused, but the same has not been considered by the learned trial Court in its proper perspective. The learned trial Court only on the basis that the human blood, which was found in article A & B of the FSL report, which are T-shirt and lower of the accused respondent, does not match with the blood group of the deceased Yashoda Sahu, the respondent has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident, therefore, the present petition may be allowed by granting leave to appeal so that the impugned judgment of acquittal could be assailed on its merits. 3 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 5. The respondent was alleged to have committed murder of the deceased, who is his wife, on suspicion of her character. For establishing the said offence, the important evidence which are relevant to be considered, are the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as there is no eye witness to the incident. The father of the deceased namely Itwari Ram (PW-3) and brother of deceased Maniram have supported the case of the prosecution but they have stated that the accused respondent did not give his memorandum in front of them and only on police saying they signed on the same. They have also stated that as to what proceeding was done with regard to seizure memo (Ex-P/14) and (Ex-P/17), they have no knowledge about the same. The other prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and denied any proceedings in front of them. The human blood which was found in article A & B of the FSL report, which are T-shirt and lower of the accused respondent, also does not match with the blood group of the deceased Yashoda Sahu and further there is no eye witness to the incident. 6. From the evidence which have come on record and the statements which have been adduced by the family members of the deceased, it reflects that except for a general and vague statement made by them, there appears to be no specific allegation made against the accused/respondent. From the testimonies of these family members of the deceased, it is evidently clear that whatever allegations that have been levelled against the accused person by them are only oral evidence which are available in the statements of the witnesses and 4 there is no material whatsoever available with the prosecution to establish the authenticity of the said statements. 7. Thus, in view of the discussion of evidence made herein above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused/respondent beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in acquitting the accused/respondent from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal, being devoid of merits, is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Deepti Jha