1 2026:CGHC:2358-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 209 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Khadgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Mangat Ram Jangade, S/o Mohan Jangade, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Phulkodo, Bogapara, Police Station- Khadgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agarwal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 15.01.2026 1. Vide order dated 28.11.2025, a bailable warrant was issued to the respondent through concerned Superintendent of Police for making his appearance before this Court, however as per report received from the In-charge of the Police Station- Khadgaon, District- Mohala- Manpur, - Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), the warrant report received unserved, as the respondent went to earn his livelihood to somewhere else after his acquittal. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.01.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 45/2016, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Smt. Sultana Bai was the wife of the present accused/respondent Mangat Ram Jangade having two children and they were residing in the house at village along with the sister Parvati Bai of the accused/respondent, but she cooked her own food separately. The accused/respondent always used to quarrel with his wife Sultana Bai after consuming liquor and had demanded for the motorcycle by selling the land of her maternal side, but the deceased Sultana Bai refused to do the same, therefore, the accused/respondent quarreled with her wife. On the date of incident i.e., on 11.02.2016., the accused and his deceased wife Sultana Bai were alone in the house and no family members were present, at that time, the daughter of the accused went to school and his sister went to Bank at Village- Jabaratola. The accused/ respondent and his wife both were doing the wood work in the courtyard (Verandah) at home and the wood was caught by the deceased Sultana Bai, then at that time, the accused assaulted with the axe (tangiya) on the throat of his wife, then she fell down in the verandah and succumbed to death. A Dehati Morgue was registered vide Ex. P/1 and Dehati Nalishi was registered vide Ex. P/2 on the basis of inquiry with the sister of the accused at Zero and on that basis, a Morgue Intimation No. 02/2016 was registered. Spot map was prepared and after examining the dead body, the panchnama was prepared and the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Thereafter, the matter was taken into 3 investigation and during investigation, the weapon was seized from the accused and examined the same, statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the basis of dehati morgue and morgue intimation, a crime has been registered against the accused and during investigation, necessary and sufficient evidences have been collected against the accused. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC, against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct prospective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondent, but despite the same, the accused respondent has been acquitted. He further submits that learned trial Court disbelieving the statements of the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and has misappreciated the findings on record and has arrived to an erroneous findings. PW-21 Dr. Seema Thakur has clearly stated in her statement that the injuries found on the body of the deceased Sultana Bai, were serious in nature and the deceased died due to excess bleeding from the wound, which was caused at her throat resulting to which, her internal arteries were cut and as such, she opined that the nature of death may be homicidal in nature, but the trial court utterly failed to consider the aforesaid facts. Therefore, looking to the facts 4 and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. None present for the respondent, despite service of notice 6. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused/respondent and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges. 8. It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Sultana Bai is the wife of accused/respondent and also it is not disputed in this case that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 9. PW-21 Dr. Seema Thakur has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Sultana Bai, who found two injuries on her neck and head of the deceased Sultana Bai and opined that cause of death due to excessive bleeding occurred due to the internal carotid artery (throat) being slit and the nature of death may be homicidal. The deceased's death is likely to have occurred within 48 days of the autopsy. She gave her report vide Ex. P/27, wherein she admitted her signature on A to A part. 10. As per dehati nalasi and dehati morgue intimation i.e., Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 respectively, Parvati Bai, sister of the accused had informed that on 11.02.2016 she went to bank at village Jabaratola and when she returned home, she saw her sister-in-law (bhabhi) in the courtyard, lying on her left side and blood was gushing forth in blood. There was a wound near her neck and it was still bleeding. Further stated that when 5 she was going to bank, at that time, her brother (accused) had quarreled with his wife and he was peeling teakwood in the courtyard, due to mutual enmity, he assaulted his wife on her neck with the axe (tangia), due to which her sister-in-law (bhabi) died. 11. Before learned trial Court PW-1 Parvati Bai has stated that at about 10:00 am, his brother Mangat Ram and sister-in-law/Sultana were peeling teakwood lying in the courtyard. At the same time, she went to Bank Bharritola for some work. When she returned home at approximately 12:00 pm from her work and found her sister-in-law, lying dead in the courtyard and she saw an injury to her neck. However, she was unaware of any dispute between her brother Mangat and sister-in-law. She admitted her signatures in dehati nalasi (Ex. P/1), dehati morgue intimation (Ex. P/2), inquest memo notice (Ex. P/3) inquest report (Ex. P/4) and also in spot map (Ex. P/5) on A to A part. Prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined, but she denied her signature in dehati nalasi (Ex. P/1) on B to B part and in her police statement (Ex. P/6) on A to A part, wherein she alleged that her brother assaulted his wife. She admitted this suggestion of defence that when she was going to the bank for some work at around 9-10 am, there was no dispute going on between her brother and sister-in-law. 12. PW-2 Punu Ram has stated that Parvati Bai apprised this fact that someone assaulted her sister-in-law/deceased Sultana Bai, therefore, he went to the spot and saw that Sultana Bai had suffered a wound to her neck and was covered in blood, she was dead. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined, but he denied this suggestion of prosecution that Parvati apprised this fact to him that her brother- Mangat Ram murdered his wife Sultana. 6 13. PW-3 Ku. Dewantin, daughter of the deceased has stated that on the date of the incident, she had gone to study at Bharritola High School. When she returned home at 12:00 noon, villagers prevented her from going to the spot and neighbors refused to let her enter the house. Later, she came to know that her father/accused murdered her mother with the axe (tangia). In her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that that she was not aware of the fact that who murdered her mother/Sultana Bai and how. 14. PW-4 Saraju Ram has admitted his signature in Exs. P/3, P/4, P/9, P/10 and P/11, but he denied any proceedings before him. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined, but he denied all suggestion of prosecution. 15. PW-6 Hanum Kumar, son of the deceased and the accused has also not supported the prosecution case. Other witnesses i.e., PW-7 Arjun Singh, PW-8 Toman Lal have also not supported the prosecution case. 16. PW-5 Dhansingh, PW-9 Suneel Kumar have stated that on the date of incident they were sitting in the shop and playing carrom with other persons. At that very moment, the accused Mangat Ram came to us and stated that he murdered his wife with axe (tangia). 17. PW-10 Muzhibur Rahman Quraishi, Head Constable has stated that on 11.02.2016, the accused Mangat Ram came to police station by saying that he murdered his wife with axe (tangia) and dead body was lying in the house. 18. PW-12 Vijay Kurre has admitted his signature in seizure memo vide Ex. P/17 on A to A part. 19. PW-17 Parmanand Tulavi has stated that police had recorded the memorandum statement of the accused vide Ex.P/16, in which, he 7 disclosed about the axe (tangia) and police had recovered the same as per seizure memo (Ex. P/14). In his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that when he went to the house of the accused, there was a crowd gathering was already there and also he was not aware of this fact as to who brought the axe (tangia) that the police seized, or where it came from. Further, admitted this fact that he signed in Ex.P/14 and Ex. P/16 at the instance of police. 20. From close scrutiny of statements of all the witnesses, it is clear in the present case that there is no eye witness. PW-1 Parvati Bai is witness of last seen, but she denied this suggestion of prosecution that when she left the house, at that time some dispute was going on between the accused and the deceased. 21. As per memorandum of the accused Ex.P/16, he disclosed about the axe (tangia) and as per seizure memo (Ex. P/14), the said article was recovered. It is clear from Ex. P/16, that in the said document, no time was mentioned and only date i.e., 11.02.2016 was mentioned by the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, in Ex. P/14, the time was mentioned as 17:00 and date was also mentioned as 11.02.2016. As per F.S.L. report (Ex. P/44), human blood was found on Article- C/axe (tangia), but looking to the statement of both memorandum and seizure witnesses, it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove this fact that axe (tangia) was seized as per memorandum of the accused. 22. PW- 22 D.K. Barva, Investigating Officer has admitted this suggestion of defence in para 18 which is reproduced for ready reference as under:- “ यह कहना सही है क द पी-16 की काय वाही म समय का उेख नह कया गया है। म जब घटना थल गया तब वहां पर ह%थयार नह प&ी थी।" 8 23. Thus, it is clear that both aforesaid documents are contrary to each other are doubtful. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused, as such by giving him benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka 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:- (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-- inclusive of all vidence, 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 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 9 error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 26. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL