1 2026:CGHC:15981-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 30 of 2013 State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Ajak, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Arshad Ali S/o Yamin Ali Aged About 35 Years R/o Mirpur Rashid Gate, PS Loni Uttar Pradesh 2 - Javed Khan Kuraishi @ Mustafa Kuraishi S/o Moh. Amshed Kuraishi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kairnaikarampura, PS Kairna Distt. Mujjfar Nagar Uttar Pradesh Presently R/o At Bharat Tractor Garage, Hikmipara, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar C.G. 3 - Intjar Khan S/o Mohd. Jamshed Khan Kuraishi Aged About 22 Years R/o Ps Kairna Ikrampura, Distt. Jujjafar Nagar Uttar Pradesh Presently R/o At Bharat Tractor Garage, Hikmipara, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr.Sameer Rigri, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.Ajay Chandra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.09 10:18:16 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 8/4/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.132/2011, whereby the accused / respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. It transpires from the order sheet dated 01.12.2025 that bailable warrant earlier issued against respondent No. 1 was received unserved, as he does not reside at the given address. As per the panchnama dated 26.11.2025 regarding service of bailable warrant, it has been reported that the accused/respondent No. 1 is not residing at the said address. So far as respondents No. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are represented by their counsel, Mr. Samir Rigri, holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Chandra, learned counsel, who is present. 3. Considering the fact that the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal pertains to the year 2013 and was admitted on 20.03.2013, and that the whereabouts of accused/respondent No. 1 could not be traced, while respondents No. 2 and 3 are duly represented by their counsel, this Court proceeds to hear the appeal finally. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 8.7.2011 at about 11:40 A.M., while on routine patrolling, the police party received information 3 that a thief had been apprehended and confined at Bharat Tractor Garage. Upon reaching the spot, the police found that one Bablu Bhatra had been tied up. On inquiry, the accused persons informed that Bablu Bhatra had been caught red-handed while attempting to theft items such as a battery charger, stepney, tools, etc., from the garage. Injury marks were found on his body. During the investigation, the relatives of the deceased and other witnesses stated that Bablu died as a result of the assault inflicted by the accused persons. Thereafter, Ajit Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, registered an unnumbered First Information Report (Ex.P-16) in connection with the incident. A merg intimation (Ex.P-13) was also recorded. Subsequently, a formal FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused persons at Police Station Kotwali. Bablu Kashyap was sent to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for medical examination and treatment of his injuries, where he succumbed during treatment. Postmortem was conducted by Dr.J.R. Shinde (PW-7) vide Ex.P- 14 and found following injuries:- “1) Abrasion near left angle of mouth 5x0.2 cm, reddish dark. 2) Abrasions scattered over supero-lateral aspect of right shoulder extending over postero-lateral aspect, of 10x8cm, reddish dark. 4 3) Abrasion over lateral aspect of upper part of right arm, 3x2cm, reddish dark. 4) Contusion over cubital area of eight upper extremity, 6x3cm dark reddish. 5) Contusion over theaner aspect right palm, 5xccm reddish black. 6) Abrasion over antero-lateral aspect of lower part of chest on eight side of 7x1/2cm, reddish dark. 7) Contused abrasion over antero-lateral aspect upper part of abdomen on right side, 5x3cm, reddish dark. 8) Contused abrasion over antero-lateral aspect of waist on right side, 5X4cm, reddish dark. 9) Abrasion over upper pact of right leg, below the knee, 3x1/2cm, reddish dark. 10) Contused lacerated wounds, two in number one middle third of right leg anteriorly, of 1/2x1/4cm & 1/2x1/2cm & bone deep dried blood present. 11) Abrasions over anterior aspect of right ankle 7x0.2cm, reddish dark. 12) Abrasion over medial side of right foot on mattebar region, 3x1cm, reddish dark. 13) Abrasions spread over the antero-lateral aspect of left arm, 10x8cm, reddish dark. 14) Lineaer abrasion over left forearm anteriorly in midline, 5x0.2cm, reddish dark. 15) Contusion over theaner aspect of left palm, 7x6cm, reddish black. 16) Two lacerations of 1 1/2x1/2cm & 1/2x1/4 cm & bone deep margins reddish black, lying over contused 5 abraded area of antero- lateral aspect of waist on left side, 7x6 cm, reddish dark. 17) Abrasion spread over the anterolateral aspect of upper part of abdomen on left side, 4x2cm, reddish dark. 18) Contused lacerated wounds present over anterior aspect of left ley over middle dried part, three in numbers, 1/2x1/4 cm, 1/2x1/2cm & 1x1/2 cm - all injuries bone deep with dried blood adherent & reddish black margins. 19) Contused abrasions spread over the postero- lateral aspect of left shoulder spread overe 13x10cm, reddish dark. 20) Abrasions over inter scapular region of upper part of back, 6x2cm, reddish dark. 21) Contused abrasion over postero-lateral aspect of lower part of left scapular region, 8x4 cm, reddish dark. 22) Abrasion over postero-lateral aspect of left elbow, 9x0.2cm, reddish dark. 23) Contusion over doesal aspect of left hand, 3x2cm, reddish dark. 24) Contused abrasions, five in numbers lying in midline of lumbar part of back varying from 1/2x1/4 cm to 1x1/2 cm, reddish dark. 25) Abrasions over lower part of back on lumbar region of right side, 3/1/2cm, reddish dark. 26) Contusions spread over right buttock extending below upto upper half of right thigh, of 38x14cm, dark reddish. 6 27) Contusions spread over left buttock extending below upto upper half of left thigh & also over antero- lateral aspect of left thigh, 41x17cm, dark reddish. 28) Contused abrasion over popliteal region of left leg posteriorly, 1/1/2cm, reddish dark.” 5. The doctor has opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries caused by a blunt and hard object and the manner of death was homicidal. On the basis of the memorandum statement of accused Arshad Ali, an iron rod was recovered. A spot map (Ex.P-10) of the place of occurrence was prepared. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P-2), iron rod and a rope were seized from accused Arshad Ali in the presence of witnesses. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their versions. The accused persons were arrested and arrest memos were prepared. The seized articles were sent, through the Superintendent of Police, Bastar, Jagdalpur, for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. Upon completion of the investigation and finding sufficient evidence, a charge-sheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused persons before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, from where the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur received the case on transfer for trial. 6. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused persons and after appreciating oral and documentary 7 evidence available on record by the impugned judgment of acquittal has acquitted the respondents from the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 7. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State submits that learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents. Learned Trial Court has based its findings on mere surmises and conjectures, without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. He further submits that learned Trial Court has further erred in overlooking the fact that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The Trial Court has further erred in failing to place reliance on the statements of prosecution witnesses who have fully supported the prosecution case. He also submits that the Trial Court has erroneously relied upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses to arrive at a finding of acquittal, without due consideration of the corroborative evidence and material collected during the investigation. It is respectfully submitted that the Trial Court ought to have placed reliance upon the evidence collected by the prosecution and the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and, on such proper appreciation of evidence, ought to have convicted the respondents/accused persons for the offences committed by them. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court l deserves to be set aside. 8 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that learned Trial Court considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused, which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and records of the trial Court. 10. It is observed by learned trial Court in para 5 of its judgment that Abhishek Kulkarni (PW-1) stated that he does not know the accused persons present in the Court. He knew the deceased Bablu Kashyap, who has since passed away, but he has no knowledge regarding the cause of Bablu’s death. Similarly, Arun Kumar Soni (PW-2) made the same statement. Amit Kumar Kashyap (PW-3) stated that he does not know the accused persons and also does not know the deceased Bablu Kashyap. He was merely passing by the hospital and is unaware of the events that occurred there. The police approached him and asked him to sign. Prem Sehgal (PW-4) stated that he does not know the accused persons and that no seizure was made in his presence. However, his signatures appear on the memorandum (Ex.P-1), seizure memos (Exs.P-2 and P-9), and the spot map (Ex.P-10). Even in the statements of these witnesses recorded for the prosecution, no evidence has been adduced linking the accused 9 to the crime. Kunti Kashyap (PW-11) stated that she knows the accused persons and also knew the deceased Bablu Kashyap, who was her brother. She stated that the police admitted her brother to the hospital, and when she reached there, her brother had already died. In her cross-examination, she clarified that she did not see anyone assaulting Bablu at Bharat Garage. 11. The trial Court in para 6 of its judgment has stated that Dr. Mahendra Prasad (PW-8) stated that on 06.07.2011, Bablu Kumar, son of Sukhdev, resident of Hikmidhara, Jagdalpur, was brought by Head Constable No. 233 Jitendra Samarth of Police Station Kotwali for medical examination. Only four injuries were observed on his body, as confirmed in the report (Ex.P-11). No other injuries were present. X-rays were advised to ascertain the nature of the injuries. The injuries were consistent with a hard and blunt object. Dr. J.R. Sidhe (PW-7) stated that on 08.07.2011, the deceased Bablu Kashyap was brought before him by Constable No. 1278 T.N. Goyal of City Kotwali for post-mortem examination. Multiple injuries were observed on the body, all ante-mortem in nature, caused by a hard and blunt object. In his opinion, the cause of death was multiple injuries inflicted by a hard and blunt weapon, and the death was homicidal. The post-mortem indicated that death had occurred 12 to 18 hours prior. His report is Ex. P- 14, bearing his signature. 12. The trial Court in para 7 of its judgment has observed that Sanjeev Singh, Constable No. 458 (PW-6), stated that Head 10 Constable Ramnath Bairagi handed him a slip regarding the death of Bablu at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, which was submitted at the police station. Sub-Inspector G.L. Khare (PW-4) recorded the mortuary intimation regarding Bablu’s death (Ex.P-13). The Station House Officer, Jagdalpur, SP Bhagat (PW-9), registered the First Information Report (Ex.P-15). Inspector Ajit Yadav (PW-10) initiated proceedings against the accused based on the mortuary intimation and recorded an unnumbered First Information Report (Ex.P-16). It is further observed that no dying declaration of the deceased was conducted while he was alive. The mortuary intimation (Ex.P-13) recorded the cause of death as “unknown, possibly poison.” It is speculative to attribute Bablu’s death to the accused persons. None of the prosecution witnesses made any statement against the accused in this regard. Even during cross-examination, no evidence linking the accused to the crime was elicited. Kunti Kashyap, who claims to be the deceased Bablu’s sister, also stated in her cross-examination that she did not witness any assault on Bablu by the accused. 13. In light of the above, the Trial Court has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused Arshad Ali, Javed Khan Qureshi @ Mustafa Qureshi, and Intzar Khan. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 11 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the statements given by the prosecution witnesses and the finding recorded by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondents from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, we are of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity. We do not find any force in this acquittal appeal. 15. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Since this Court has dismissed the acquittal appeal, bailable warrant issued against accused/respondent No. 1 stands cancelled. 16. A certified copy of this judgment along with record be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu