1 CGHC010354892021 2026:CGHC:32528-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 104 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur Distirct Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Rakesh @ Pintu S/o Late Shri Rajendra Pradhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Katiyapara, Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur Distirct Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State/Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Applicant/State. 2. The present application for grant of leave to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant/State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 108/2019, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.31 18:48:59 +0530 2 Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that the deceased, Chitralekha @ Babli, was the wife of the respondent/accused and was residing with him and their children in a rented house at Shiv Chowk, Katiyapara, Bilaspur. It is submitted that the respondent/accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and frequently assaulted the deceased. On the date of the incident, the complainant, PW-1 Sudesh Pradhan, was informed by one Meena, a neighbour of the deceased, that the respondent/accused was assaulting the deceased. Upon reaching the spot, PW-1 found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a grievous head injury, her brain matter protruding from the wound, while the respondent/accused had fled from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the medical evidence clearly establishes that the death was homicidal in nature and that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the respondent/accused in the commission of the offence. 4. He would further submit that the incident had taken place inside the house where the deceased and the respondent/accused were residing together and, therefore, the facts relating to the occurrence were especially within the knowledge of the respondent/accused. However, the respondent/accused failed to furnish any plausible explanation as to how the deceased sustained the fatal injuries. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-1 Sudesh Pradhan regarding the respondent's conduct, his habitual assault on the deceased after consuming liquor, and the previous complaint lodged by the deceased against him, constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance establishing motive and conduct. According to the learned State counsel, the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and medical evidence and ignored the chain of circumstances proved by the 3 prosecution, resulting in an erroneous acquittal. Therefore, sufficient grounds exist for grant of leave to file the acquittal appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/state and perused the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and upon perusal of the record, particularly the evidence of PW-1 Sudesh Pradhan, the post-mortem report, and the other material evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are satisfied that the deceased, being the wife of the respondent/accused, died a homicidal death inside the house where both were residing. The post-mortem report reveals multiple ante-mortem injuries, including a fracture of the skull bone, hematoma, lacerated wound near the left eye, and fracture of the mandible, clearly indicating a violent assault. The respondent/accused has failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which the deceased sustained such fatal injuries while inside the matrimonial home, though the facts were especially within his knowledge. Prima facie, the learned trial Court does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence on record and has acquitted the respondent on findings which require re-examination in appeal. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the applicant/State has made out a fit case for grant of leave to file the acquittal appeal. 7. Accordingly, the application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of leave to file an acquittal appeal is allowed. 8. The Office is directed to register the case under the head of "Acquittal Appeal." 9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. 4 10. The acquittal appeal is admitted. 11. Let a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- be issued against the respondent/accused to secure his presence before this Court on 12.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok