1 2026:CGHC:15972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 200 of 2012 State of C.G. Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus 1 - Subhash @ Aayatu, S/o Babulal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pinkoda, PS Mirtur, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Laxman @ Sudhakar S/o Jangu Maravi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Ranganwadi, Tah. Bot, Distt. Aadilabad A.P., 3 - Ashok Reddi @ Murli S/o Satti Reddi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Tirumal Giri, PS Tirumal Giri, Distt. Nalgonda A.P., 4 - Shridhar Krishnan @ Vishnu S/o Krishnan Shrinivasan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o F-22, Teachers Colony, Deonar, Bombey 110 Maharashtra, ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.04.2026 Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No.18/2010, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 25(A) and 27 of the Arms Act, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.09 14:55:06 +0530 2 1959, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention), 1967. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons namely Subhash @ Aayatu, Laxman @ Sudhakar, Ashok Reddy @ Murli and Shridhar Krishnan @ Vishnu (respondents herein), along with other co- accused, were allegedly involved in naxalite activities prior to 03.07.2007 and were in possession of illegal arms/weapons, cartridges and explosive substances. During interrogation, accused Subhash is said to have disclosed his involvement in naxalite activities and also revealed the names of other co-accused persons. On the basis of the above, on 04.04.2010, offence was registered against the accused persons under Crime No.113/2010 in the police station Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused/respondents were taken into custody. On the basis of the memorandum statement of accused Subhash (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4), the police allegedly recovered four rifles, three guns, cartridges and other articles from the forest area of Kanaghurra and seized them vide Ex. P-5. Subsequently, further recovery of explosive materials including liquid explosives and arms was allegedly made from the forest area on the basis of another memorandum, seized vide Ex. P-2. 3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the competent trial Court. The accused/respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial. 3 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of all charges leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondents herein of charges levelled against them by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused/respondents were involved in naxalite activities and were found in possession of the dangerous weapons and other explosive substances and despite such cogent and clinching evidence, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the 4 accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 8. The prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of P.W.2 P.C. Rai, the then Station House Officer, who deposed regarding the arrest of accused Subhash and recording of his memorandum statements on 03.07.2007 (Ex. P/3 and P/4) and on 05.07.2007 (Ex.P/1), according to which, certain articles were seized from the forest of village Kandhurya, as per Exhibit P/5 seizure memo, including wireless handset batteries, a portable telephone, cartridges, electric wires, explosive substances kept in plastic bags, and other materials. However, from a careful reading of his testimony, it appears that he has not clearly described the exact place and manner in which the seized articles were recovered. The alleged place of recovery is an open forest area, which weakens the evidentiary value of such recovery unless corroborated by independent witnesses. This apart, this witness has not prepared any spot map from where the alleged weapons and articles were seized. 9. The independent witnesses, namely P.W.8 Bisesar and P.W.1 Chunni Lal Sahu, who were cited as witnesses to the alleged seizure proceedings (Ex.P-2), and P.W.8 Bisesar along with constable Mahesh (not examined) as seizure witnesses to Ex.P-5, have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.8 Bisesar has categorically stated that no seizure was made in his presence and that his signatures were obtained at the police station. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the police had taken his signatures as a witness in many cases. He further admitted that he was not aware of the whereabouts of the accused Subhash when his signatures were obtained. Although he was declared hostile, nothing substantial could be elicited in his cross- 5 examination to support the prosecution case. Similarly, P.W.1 Chunni Lal Sahu has not fully supported the prosecution and has made inconsistent statements regarding the alleged recovery. He admitted that both he and constable Mahesh Mishra signed the seizure memo (Ex.P-5) at the police station. However, Mahesh Mishra has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. He further admitted that he had not gone to the Salekasa forest, from where the alleged seizures are said to have been made. 10. Another important aspect is that there is no evidence on record to show that the seized articles were properly sealed and preserved. Furthermore, there is no sample seal affixed on the seizure memo (Exs.P-2 & Ex.P-5). Moreover, the alleged seized articles were not produced before the trial Court. There is also no conclusive evidence to establish that the seized materials were indeed explosive substances. 11. A significant circumstance which creates doubt about the prosecution case is the unexplained delay in registration of FIR (Ex.P-12). The alleged recoveries were made on 03.07.2007 and 05.07.2007, whereas the FIR was registered on 04.04.2010, after a gap of nearly three years. Though the prosecution has tried to explain this delay by stating that the seized articles were handed over to Maharashtra Police, but the explanation is not satisfactory and does not inspire confidence. The prosecution has also failed to produce any independent evidence to establish that the accused persons were members of any unlawful organization or that they were involved in unlawful activities as alleged. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 6 "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:- "(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 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 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." 13. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence, and in the light of aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish a clear and cogent link between the accused persons and the alleged recovery of arms and explosives. The evidence suffers from serious infirmities, contradictions and lack of corroboration. The trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the view taken by the learned trial Court 7 appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. 14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of accused / respondents is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash