1 CGHC010220972022 2026:CGHC:37807-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1134 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station, City Kotwali Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Kartik Ram Patel S/o Trilochan Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Surda, Thana And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant-State : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J udge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24 .08.2026 1. The applicant / State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 6.4.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Case No.03/2021, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Indrasen was working as a watchman at a rice mill situated at village Surda. His duty BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.24 17:45:55 +0530 2 hours were from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. On 10.06.2020, the deceased left his house at about 8:30 p.m. for attending his duty at the rice mill. However, he did not return home after completion of his duty on the following morning. His whereabouts remained unknown. On 16.06.2020, the father of the deceased, Tiblu Ram, submitted a written information regarding the deceased being missing, while his brother Chandrasen Patel also gave information at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli. On the basis thereof, Missing No. 36/2020 was recorded in the Roznamcha Sanha and investigation was commenced. Meanwhile, on 14.06.2020, Khanju Das Manikpuri, Kotwar of village Mohtra, informed Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli that the dead body of an unknown male was lying in the water of the Agar River at village Mohtra. Marg No. 33/2020 was accordingly registered and investigation was taken up. Thereafter, on the information furnished by the Kotwar, Khanju Das Manikpuri, the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 350/2020 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution further alleged that panchnama of the dead body was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the dead body was initially sent to the District Hospital, Mungeli and thereafter to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for post-mortem examination. Identification proceedings were conducted. During investigation, the accused was taken into custody and his disclosure statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, the articles allegedly used in 3 commission of the offence were seized. A spot map was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No. 323/2020 before the competent Court for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 4. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined Khanju Das Manikpuri (PW-1), Bhurvaram Patel (PW-2), Tibluram (PW- 3), Maharani Patel (PW-4), Chandresen Patel (PW-5), Rajesh Bhaskar (PW-6), Radheshyam Nishad (PW-7), Manoj Netam (PW-8), Charuchandran Netam (PW-9), Sushil Jaiswal (PW-10), Omprakash Rajput (PW-11), Mahasingh Dhurwe (PW-12) and Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-13), besides the documentary and other material collected during investigation. 5. The respondent/accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted him of the offences charged. 6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the applicant/State submits that the judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence available on record and that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in properly appreciating the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has discarded the testimony of the complainant and other prosecution 4 witnesses on the basis of minor omissions and contradictions, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. According to learned counsel, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when considered in its entirety, establishes the involvement of the respondent/accused. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence and the statements of the doctors who conducted the postmortem examination. It is contended that the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case and that the Trial Court has misappreciated the same. 7. Learned Deputy Government Advocate further submits that the conduct of the respondent/accused and the circumstances emerging from the investigation establish his involvement in the commission of the offence. It is argued that the recovery made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, coupled with the other circumstances proved by the prosecution, sufficiently connect the accused with the crime. It is also submitted that all mandatory procedures prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure were duly complied with during investigation and that the learned Trial Court has erred in giving undue importance to alleged lapses or irregularities in investigation. On these grounds, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are erroneous, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned 5 Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the applicant/State and have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the material placed on record. 9. The principal issue which arises for consideration at this stage is whether the applicant/State has made out a prima facie case or raised any arguable ground warranting grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal. 10. The learned Trial Court in para 25 of its judgment has recorded that in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not conduct the identification proceedings of the dead body of the deceased. PW-3 Tiblu Ram, father of the deceased, and PW-5 Chandrasen Patel, brother of the deceased, had given information on 16.06.2020 at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli regarding the deceased Indrasen Patel being missing. However, from a perusal of the record relating to handing over of the dead body, it appears that on the very same date the dead body had been handed over to one Raju Betal for burial. If PW-3 Tiblu Ram, father of the deceased, and PW-5 Chandrasen Patel, brother of the deceased, had informed the police on 16.06.2020 that Indrasen Patel was missing, then in such circumstances, why did the Investigating Officer not conduct identification proceedings of the dead body on 16.06.2020? No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution in this regard. The prosecution has also failed to clarify whether the unknown dead body was cremated or buried and in what manner the last rites were performed. Even the Investigating Officer did 6 not consider it appropriate to send the unknown dead body and the articles connected with the offence for examination by the FSL. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asif Mamu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) CCSC 56 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the effect of defective investigation and held that where, on account of infirmities in the evidence and defective investigation, the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be unjustified.” The aforesaid finding cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant or based on no material. The Trial Court has specifically noticed the chronological inconsistency between the information regarding the deceased being missing and the manner in which the unidentified dead body was dealt with. The Trial Court has also noticed the absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding the identification of the dead body and the failure to subject the relevant articles to forensic examination. 11. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous 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:- 7 "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 the view taken is not possible at all." 13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu