1 2026:CGHC:15523-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 364 of 2019 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Suddhu Ram Mandawi S/o Late Rakhnu Ram Mandawi Aged About 65 Years R/o Schoolpara, Bhurka, Police Station- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Birjho Bai W/o Suddhu Ram Mandwai Aged About 60 Years R/o Schoolpara, Bhurka, Police Station- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate through Legal Aid 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 06/04/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District–North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 50/2016, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.04.2016, complainant reported the matter at the concerned Police Station, stating that on 09.04.2016 at about 8:00 PM, she had gone to a borewell to fetch water. Upon her return, she found her husband, Jagannath, lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard. Her minor son, Karan, aged about 10 years, informed her that accused Suddhu Ram and his wife, accused Birno Bai, had assaulted the deceased with sticks and a pestle on account of suspicion regarding theft of a chicken. It was alleged that accused Suddhu Ram inflicted blows with a stick, while accused Birno Bai assaulted the deceased with a wooden plank, resulting in injuries to his right temple and right rib. The incident was stated to have been witnessed by Mohan and Ledgu Ram. Due to the late hours of the night and the remoteness and sensitivity of the village area, the complainant, 3 after informing the village head (Sarpanch) and Kotwar, proceeded along with villagers to lodge the report. On the basis of such information, Inquest Intimation (Ex.P/2) was registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, and pursuant thereto, First Information Report (Ex.P/1) was lodged, leading to registration of Crime No. 86/2016, which was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, notices (Ex.P/3-A) were issued to witnesses for their presence during the inquest proceedings. Panchayatnama of the dead body (Ex.P/3) was prepared. A duty certificate (Ex.P/22) was issued to Constable No. 862, Narad Ram Vatti, for conducting the postmortem examination. The postmortem requisition (Ex.P/18) was duly filled and postmortem report (Ex.P/12) was obtained, after which the dead body was handed over to the family members. Seizure proceedings were conducted wherein, as per seizure memo (Ex.P/7), the pestle allegedly used in the offence was seized; as per Ex.P/8, a bamboo stick was seized; and as per Ex.P/9, blood- stained and plain soil from the spot were collected. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination and reports thereof were obtained (Ex.P/21 and Ex.P/24). Arrest memos of the accused were prepared as per Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/20 and intimation of arrest was duly given to their family members. Statements of witnesses were recorded under due process. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, where it 4 was registered as Criminal Case No. 158/2016 on 04.07.2016 and subsequently committed/transferred to the competent Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. During the course of trial, charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused persons, to which they abjured guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence alleging false implication in the case. The accused/respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence. 5. Upon appreciation and evaluation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused persons of the charge punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment, findings and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, improper and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of law in disbelieving the prosecution case regarding the homicidal death of the deceased, who was 5 murdered by the respondents/accused in furtherance of their common intention and motive, initially by assaulting him with a danda and thereafter by strangulation. The learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of Dr. A.K. Dhruw, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and categorically opined that the injuries sustained were grievous in nature and that the death was homicidal. The learned Trial Court has erred in ignoring the recovery of incriminating articles used in the commission of the offence, which were seized pursuant to the memorandum of the accused and were found to be stained with blood. The learned Trial Court ought to have held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ought to have convicted them accordingly. The learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the minor eyewitness Karan, son of the deceased, as well as that of Mohan and Ledgu Ram, in whose presence the incident had occurred. The learned Trial Court has failed to duly appreciate and consider the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who have consistently supported the prosecution case. In view thereof, the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned, lawful and based on proper 6 appreciation of evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of alleged eyewitnesses is unreliable and suffers from material contradictions and the testimony of the minor witness is not wholly trustworthy. The medical and forensic evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution version. Hence, no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC were duly framed against the respondents/accused. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents/accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. As per the prosecution case, Karan Ukey (P.W.-2), the sole eye- witness to the incident and son of the deceased, has deposed that on the date of occurrence, accused Suddhu Ram (maternal uncle) and accused Birjho Bai (aunt) were assaulting his father with a stick and a wooden plank. He further stated that as a result of the said assault, his father sustained injuries on his head, chest and 7 neck and was bleeding. It is also stated that upon his mother reaching home, he narrated the entire incident to her. In para 4 of his cross-examination, he stated that, “ मैं अपनी मैं ” के साथ गवाही दे नी आया ही। मैंझे मैं री मैं नी सिसाखाया ही किके ऐसा ऐसा गवाही दे नी ही। 11. Anita Ukey (P.W.-1), the wife of the deceased, has deposed that her son, Karan Ukey (P.W.-2), informed her that accused Suddhu Ram and accused Birjho Bai had assaulted her husband with a stick and a wooden plank. She further stated that, on the basis of such information, she lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/1). The merg intimation, based on the information furnished by her, was registered as Ex. P/2 and the inquest memo was prepared as Ex. P/3. In her cross-examination, she categorically admitted that she had not witnessed the incident herself. 12. Parmila Sonwani (P.W.-3), Gokulram Netam (P.W.-4), Mohan (P.W.-5) and Nedguram (P.W.-6) did not support the case of the prosecution. Consequently, they were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecution; however, they denied all the suggestions put to them. 13. Dr. A.K. Dhruw (P.W.-7), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was asphyxia. He further stated that the mode of death was asphyxia resulting from throttling, leading to respiratory arrest and the 8 nature of death was unnatural and homicidal. The postmortem report in this regard is Ex. P/12. 14. During the course of investigation, a stick and a wooden plank were seized. Dr. A.K. Dhruw (P.W.-7) was queried as to whether the death of the deceased could have been caused by injuries inflicted with the said articles. He opined that although such injuries could possibly be caused by the said articles, the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation. He further stated that he re-sealed the bamboo stick and the wooden plank and handed them over to the accompanying constable. His query/interrogation report in this regard is Ex. P/13. 15. Further, as per the FSL report, no blood was detected on the seized articles. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252, has held in para 36 as under:- 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- 9 “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-- inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible 10 view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re- appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 17. Upon a careful and comprehensive re-appreciation of the material available on record, it is evident that the learned Trial Court has 11 meticulously evaluated both the oral and documentary evidence. The Court has rightly found that the testimony of Karan Ukey (P.W.-2), the sole eye-witness, is not reliable, particularly in view of his categorical admission during cross-examination that he was a tutored witness. It has further been observed that the seizure and memorandum witnesses did not support the prosecution case, thereby weakening the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution. Moreover, the FSL report does not indicate the presence of blood on the seized articles. The medical and forensic evidence also fails to conclusively corroborate the prosecution version. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court has justifiably held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused and has, upon proper and judicious appreciation of evidence, recorded a well-reasoned order of acquittal. 18. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra), the view adopted by the learned Trial Court is a legally plausible and permissible view. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the view favouring the accused ought to be preferred. Interference with an order of acquittal is warranted only when the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, illegal, or suffer from manifest misappreciation of evidence. 12 19. Having regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case so as to justify interference. 20. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV