1 CGHC010179032026 2026:CGHC:30541-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1372 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Thankhamahariya, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santosh Das Manikpuri S/o Barsan Manikpuri Aged About 50 Years Residents Of Village Beltara, Police Station- Thankhamhariya, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jwala Das Manikpuri S/o Santosh Manikpuri Aged About 30 Years Residents Of Village Beltara, Police Station- Thankhamhariya, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .07.2026 1. The petitioner / State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.21 12:11:23 +0530 2 01/2025, whereby the respondent / accused have been acquitted from offence punishable under Sections 103(1) r/w Section 3(5) and Section 238 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25(1-b)(b) and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act arising out of Crime No. 147/2024, registered at Police Station- Thankhamhariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.10.2024, complainant Thakur Das Manikpuri lodged a report at Police Station Thankhamhariya stating that he is a resident of Village- Beltara and earns his livelihood through agriculture. His elder brother, Rohit Manikpuri, was serving as the Kotwar of the village. In the early hours of 09.10.2024 at about 3:00 a.m., one Rakesh Manikpuri telephonically informed him that Rohit, who had left his house on a motorcycle at about 7:00 p.m. on the previous evening, had not returned home. Thereafter, Thakur Das, along with Rakesh Manikpuri, Khemin Bai, Takeshwar Vishwakarma and Ashwani Nirmalkar, started searching for Rohit. During the search, they found Rohit’s motorcycle parked near a house situated in the fields. On illuminating the staircase of the house with a torch, they noticed Rohit’s body lying in a pool of blood. After daybreak, they again inspected the spot and found that an unknown person had brutally assaulted Rohit with a sharp-edged weapon on his head, face, chest and abdomen, causing his death. 3. On the basis of the said information, an unnumbered Dehati Marg Intimation was recorded and thereafter Marg No. 26/2024 was registered at Police Station Thana Khamhariya. During the marg enquiry, the investigating agency prepared the inquest proceedings, conducted the 3 postmortem examination of the deceased and, upon receiving the medical opinion that the death was homicidal in nature, registered a criminal case against unknown persons. 4. During investigation, the spot map was prepared and, on the basis of the memorandum statements of accused Jwala Das and Santosh Das, a motorcycle, an iron gandasa, an iron knife, partially burnt clothes, ashes, burnt soil, matchsticks and other incriminating articles were seized. Blood- stained and plain soil, blood-stained cotton swabs, samples of concrete scrapings containing blood, a pair of slippers, the deceased’s motorcycle and key were also seized from the spot. The seized articles, including the blood samples, weapons, clothes of the deceased, viscera and other exhibits, were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) read with Section 3(5) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. 5. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons, who denied the allegations, claimed false implication and sought trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, including the complainant, family members of the deceased, seizure witnesses, medical experts, investigating officers and forensic witnesses, besides exhibiting the relevant documentary evidence. 6. However, after appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court held that the 4 prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them. Hence, this leave to appeal. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral, documentary, medical and forensic evidence in its proper perspective and has acquitted the respondents on erroneous assumptions. It is further submitted that the prosecution had successfully established the homicidal death of the deceased through the medical evidence, the motive for commission of the offence arising out of the illicit relationship between the wife of respondent No.2 and the deceased, the recoveries effected pursuant to the memorandum statements of the respondents, and the other incriminating circumstances forming a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the respondents. According to the learned State counsel, the learned Trial Court has ignored material evidence, adopted an erroneous approach in appreciating the circumstances proved by the prosecution and has consequently recorded an unsustainable order of acquittal. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the respondents be convicted for the offences with which they were charged. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgment along with the material on record annexed with the present appeal. 5 9. The learned Special Judge, upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the respondents. The Trial Court observed that though the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, including the complainant and the Forensic Expert Reshmi Sinha (PW-17), none of the witnesses could establish the last seen circumstance or any direct evidence connecting the respondents with the commission of the offence. The Court further held that the alleged motive based on the illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of respondent No.2 rested merely on hearsay evidence and was not proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The Trial Court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove any incriminating conduct of the respondents after the incident. Though the prosecution relied upon the memorandum statements and recoveries under seizure memo (Ex.P-17), the Court held that the recoveries themselves remained doubtful and could not be safely relied upon. 10. The Trial Court further observed that the medical evidence of Dr. Vinay Kumar Patil (PW-14) undoubtedly established that the death of the deceased was homicidal, however, the forensic evidence did not connect the respondents with the crime. On a careful examination of the FSL Reports (Ex.P-41 and Ex.P-42), the Court found that although blood was detected on certain seized articles, the blood group could not be determined and, significantly, the blood group of the deceased had not been ascertained during investigation. The alleged blood stains found on the recovered gandasa were either disintegrated or did not yield any 6 conclusive result, and therefore the prosecution failed to prove that the recovered weapon had been used in the commission of the offence. The Court further held that the injuries found on respondent Jwala Das were not proved to have been sustained during the incident, as PW-14 did not opine about the age of the injuries and PW-16 had not himself noticed such injuries during investigation. Holding that the essential links in the chain of circumstantial evidence had remained unproved and relying upon the principles governing circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, and Raja Nayakar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2024 SC 740, the learned Special Judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted them of all the charges. 11. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow this petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 12. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if 7 the view taken is not possible at all." 13. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are founded upon a proper appreciation of the oral, documentary and forensic evidence on record. The prosecution failed to establish the last seen circumstance, the alleged motive remained unsubstantiated by reliable evidence, the recoveries pursuant to the memorandum statements did not receive corroboration from the forensic evidence, and the FSL reports failed to connect the alleged weapons with the crime. The Trial Court has also rightly noticed that the blood group of the deceased was never determined, thereby rendering the forensic evidence inconclusive. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable and possible view based on the evidence available on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or impossible so as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no arguable case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. Thus, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet