1 2026:CGHC:8388-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 268 of 2021  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus 1. Dilo @ Dilkumar Bhagat S/o. Gunuram Bhagat, Aged About 34 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kunjara, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 2. Dayaram Kalanga S/o Nanki Ram, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Bardihi, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 3. Lalit Kumar Bhagat S/o Dadar Bhagat, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Karrapala Bhukarra, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 4. Laxmi Prasad Sidar S/o Devanand Prasad, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Village Kunjara, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5. Puseram Bhagat S/o Dasai Ram, Aged About 65 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kunjara, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6. Anuj Choudhary S/o Kail Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years 2 Occupation Student, R/o Village Kunjara, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 7. Saroj Pradhan @ Bablu S/o Makhan Pradhan, Aged About 31 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kunjara, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For State/Appellant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents : None DB : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (17.02.2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J Heard on Admission. 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State/appellant herein against the judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed in Special Criminal Case under The Atrocities Act No.21/2017 by the learned Special Judge (under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC and accused/respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 3 201 of IPC & Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short ‘SC/ST Act’). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Daulat Ram Lader, belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, was posted as a Ranger in the Forest Department at Lailunga for the past four years and was residing with his family in a government quarter situated at Bazarpara, Lailunga. On 03.01.2017, the tractor and trolley belonging to accused Dil Kumar @ Dilo Bhagat were found transporting illegally excavated stones from the Gamekela forest. The driver and others were apprehended by Ranger Daulat Ram Lader, a forest offence was registered, and the tractor and trolley were seized. On 20.02.2017 at about 8:30 PM, the accused persons came to the government residence of Ranger Daulat Ram Lader to secure the release of the seized tractor and trolley. At that time, Forest Guard Himmat Ram Nikunj (PW-1) and Forest Guard Saiyyad Sultan Savani (PW-8) were present at the residence of the deceased and were engaged in official discussion. Accused Dilkumar @ Dilo, Dayaram Kalanga, Anuj Chaudhary, Lalit Kumar Bhagat, Laxmi Prasad Sidar, Bablu Pradhan, and Puseram Bhagat arrived there. Accused Dilkumar @ Dilo requested 4 the deceased to release the seized tractor and trolley. The deceased refused stating that a forest offence had already been registered and therefore he could not release the vehicle. Upon this, accused Dilkumar @ Dilo and the other accused became agitated and argued with him. They were persuaded and sent out of the house, after which they left. After about 10–15 minutes, Forest Guard Himmat Ram Nikunj (PW-1) and Forest Guard Saiyyad Sultan Savani (PW-8) also left the residence. The deceased closed the door and went inside his house. 3. Shortly thereafter, accused Dilkumar @ Dilo, Dayaram Kalanga, Anuj, and Lalit returned to the house of the deceased, while Bablu, Laxmi, and Puseram stood at a distance to keep watch. Accused Dilkumar @ Dilo rang the doorbell. When the deceased came out, accused Dilkumar @ Dilo engaged him in conversation and took him a short distance away from the residence. Suddenly, accused Dilkumar @ Dilo took out a small-handled axe (tangia) concealed behind his back and inflicted two to three blows on the head of the deceased. When the deceased attempted to flee, he was caught hold of by Dayaram Kalanga, Lalit, and Anuj. After the deceased fell to the ground, accused Dilkumar @ Dilo again assaulted him with 5 the same axe, inflicting three to four blows on his neck and face, as a result of which Daulat Ram Lader died. Thereafter, the accused persons dragged the dead body towards the wall in the dark and left the place. At about 11:15 PM, Forest Guard Himmat Ram Nikunj (PW-1), after finishing his dinner, came out for a walk and saw the body of Ranger Daulat Ram Lader lying in a pool of blood in front of the quarter of R.I. Nishad. He informed SDO Chakramani Sharma (PW-9), Saiyyad Sultan Savani (PW-8), and other officials. On 20.02.2017 at about 11:30 PM, Himmat Ram Nikunj (PW-1) lodged information at Police Station Lailunga, on the basis of which Sub-Inspector R.K. Kesharwani (PW- 18) registered Merg No. 13/2017 and started inquiry. On the same date, on the basis of the report lodged by PW-1, Crime No. 48/2017 was registered against unknown persons under Section 302 IPC, and the First Information Report was promptly forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. During investigation, on 21.02.2017, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses and prepared the spot map. Notice under Section 175 CrPC was issued to the witnesses for conducting inquest proceedings, and the inquest panchnama was 6 prepared. With the consent of the panch witnesses, an application for post-mortem examination was made, and the dead body was sent to the Community Health Centre, Lailunga, where Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathiya conducted the post-mortem examination and opined that the cause of death was excessive hemorrhage leading to hemorrhagic shock due to the injuries sustained. From the spot, the Investigating Officer seized a Nokia mobile phone of the deceased, a grey cap bearing the number “19” with a yellow thread in front, one black old Hawai chappal, a pair of leather slippers belonging to the deceased, one old black plastic right-foot slipper, blood-stained soil, and plain soil. On 22.02.2017, accused Dayaram Kalanga, Lalit Kumar, and Anuj Chaudhary were taken into custody, and their memorandum statements were recorded. At the instance of accused Lalit Kumar, one Platina motorcycle bearing registration No. CG13UG4225 and one CT-100 motorcycle were seized from the courtyard of the house of accused Dilkumar @ Dilo at Village Kunjara. A black full pant worn during the incident and bearing human blood-like stains was also seized. At the instance of accused Dayaram Kalanga and Anuj Chaudhary, their blood-stained clothes and footwear were seized. The blood-stained axe (tangia) used 7 in the commission of the offence was recovered from near the road ahead of Dagla Petrol Pump and seized. 5. On 14.03.2017, accused Dilkumar @ Dilo Bhagat was taken into custody, his memorandum statement was recorded, and blood-stained clothes were seized at his instance. A Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. CG13K/1162 was also seized. The caste certificate of the deceased was seized during investigation. The accused persons were arrested on different dates, and intimation of arrest was given to their relatives. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, and the chemical analysis report was received and placed on record. Videography of the scene of occurrence was conducted, and the CD was exhibited. 6. After completing due investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302, 120(B), 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act was filed against the accused/respondents before the jurisdictional Court followed by charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The accused/respondents however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as 8 many as 21 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. No defence witness was examined in the case. 8. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC and accused/respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC & Sections 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this appeal by the State. 9. Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/appellant submits that the judgment, findings, and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, improper, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and therefore liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the learned Trial Judge has gravely erred in acquitting the respondents/accused despite there being cogent, reliable, and consistent evidence on record establishing their involvement in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel contended that the learned 9 Trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and instead proceeded on surmises and conjectures. It was urged that the learned Trial Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reasons. The approach adopted by the Trial Court, according to the State, reflects misappropriation of material evidence and erroneous application of the principle of benefit of doubt. 10. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused persons. The offence in question pertains to the brutal murder of a public servant who was discharging his official duties, and the evidence on record clearly establishes motive, presence, and subsequent conduct of the accused. The Trial Court, however, overlooked these vital aspects while granting acquittal. Referring to the testimony of PW-1 Himmat Ram Nikunj, learned State counsel submitted that the witness categorically stated that he knew the accused persons and that on 20.02.2017 at about 7:30 PM, the accused persons came to the residence of the deceased Daulat Ram Lader seeking recommendation for release of the tractor seized in 10 connection with illegal mining in the forest. Upon refusal by the deceased, they left. Later, at about 11:15 PM, when PW- 1 came out of his house, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and dead. The injuries were evidently caused by a sharp weapon. The sequence of events clearly establishes motive and a direct nexus between the refusal of the deceased and the subsequent homicidal assault. Despite such material evidence, the Trial Court failed to draw the proper inference and erroneously acquitted the accused. It was also argued that PW-5 Rajkumari supported the prosecution case stating that the tractor and trolley belonging to accused Dilo were seized by the deceased. This fact establishes the genesis of the dispute and provides strong motive for the crime. Similarly, PW-8 Sayyed Sultan deposed that on 20.02.2017 the deceased had seized the tractor used in illegal mining, and in the night six accused persons came to the house of the deceased requesting release of the vehicle. Upon refusal, a quarrel ensued between the deceased and the accused persons. This testimony corroborates the version of PW-1 and establishes prior hostility immediately preceding the incident. However, the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate this corroborative evidence. Learned State 11 counsel further submitted that the Trial Court also failed to duly consider the statement of PW-10 Pushpa Lader, wife of the deceased, whose testimony lends further support to the prosecution case regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident and the involvement of the accused persons. 11. It was emphatically contended that the Trial Court granted acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt without there being any reasonable or substantial doubt arising from the evidence on record. The prosecution had placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence, including medical and forensic materials, which collectively established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The doubts entertained by the learned Trial Court were artificial and not borne out from the record. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was argued that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court are unjust, improper, and contrary to law. The impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities and misappropriation of evidence, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 12. No one appeared on behalf of the accused/respondents, 13. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 12 14. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act , and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC and accused/respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC & Sections 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST. 15. Himmat Ram Nikunj (PW-1) has stated that on 20-02-2017, at about 7:30 p.m., the accused persons had come to the house of deceased, Lader Saheb, to make a recommendation. He further stated that on 03-01-2017, deceased Lader Saheb had seized a tractor from the forest due to illegal excavation, and on 20-02-2017, the accused persons had gone to request the release of the said tractor. At the time when the accused persons had come for the recommendation, he (this witness) was also present there. He further stated that Lader Saheb had asked him whether the place in question was inside the forest or outside the forest. As he (this witness) was conducting the investigation in that matter, he informed Lader Saheb that it was 13 Compartment No. 238 P.F., which fell within Munara No. 13/36. Thereafter, Lader Saheb told the accused persons that he could not release the tractor and that even the Deputy could not release it, and advised them to meet the S.D.O. He has also stated that they were having an official discussion with Lader Saheb, and Syed Sultan Sabri Saheb was also present with him. The accused persons were sent outside the room, and at about 8:30 p.m., the accused persons left Lader Saheb’s room. He further stated that he and Sabri Saheb discussed official matters outside Lader Saheb’s house for about 10–15 minutes. Thereafter, they went to their respective houses, and Lader Saheb went inside and closed the door. He has further stated that at about 11:15 p.m., after having dinner, he came out of his house. The distance between his house and Lader Saheb’s house was approximately 50 meters. At that time, he saw deceased Lader Saheb lying in front of the R.I. Quarter in pool of blood. He observed an injury on Lader Saheb’s neck caused by a sharp-edged weapon and also noticed a mark of injury on his cheek. When he saw Lader Saheb, he had already died. He further stated that thereafter he immediately informed the S.D.O. Saheb about the incident and then went to the police station and lodged the merg 14 intimation (Ex.P-1) followed by FIR under Ex.P-2. 16. According to the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2), some unknown person assaulted the deceased. 17. Baliram Bhoy (PW-2), Sanjay Agrawal (PW-3), Narayan Prasad (PW-4), Rajkumari (PW-5), Santkumar Bhagat (PW- 6), Masatram Sarthi (PW-7), Saiyyad Sultan Savni (PW-8), Chakrapani Sharma (PW-9), Pushpa Lader (PW-10), Natthulal Goyankar (PW-11), Nepal Das (PW-12), Gopal Das (PW-13), Rakesh painkra (PW-14), Ramlal Pradhan (PW-15), Kaliram Lader (PW-16) and Amit Arya (PW-17) all have stated that they heard about the murder of deceased. Some of the witnesses have stated that before the occurrence of the incident, accused persons had gone to the house of deceased but they went back and some of the witnesses have stated that at about 11.15 PM, the deceased was found in pool of blood. 18. The police recorded the memorandum statement of accused/respondent Dayaram Kalanga under Ex.P-55, accused/respondent Lalit Kumar under Ex.P-56, accused/respondent Anuj Choudhary under Ex.P-57, accused/respondent Laxmi Prasad Sidar under Ex.P-58, accused/respondent Nepal Das under Ex.P-59 and accused/respondent Bablu @ Saroj under Ex.P-60 but the 15 witnesses to the memorandum statements namely Nepal Das (PW-12) and Gopal Das (PW-13) have not supported the memorandum and seizure. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them but they only admitted their signature on memorandum statement but denied all suggestion of prosecution and all proceeding before them. 19. Upon careful appreciation of the testimony of Himmat Ram Nikunj (PW-1) it only proves that the accused persons had visited the house of the deceased earlier in the evening for making a request regarding release of the seized tractor; however, his evidence does not disclose any overt act, threat, quarrel, or incriminating circumstance connecting the accused with the homicidal death of the deceased. Significantly, both the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and the FIR (Ex.P-2) were lodged against unknown persons, which clearly indicates that at the earliest point of time there was no suspicion against the present accused. 20. The remaining prosecution witnesses (PW-2 to PW-17) have merely stated that they heard about the incident or that the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood. Their testimonies are hearsay in nature and do not establish any direct or indirect involvement of the accused in the 16 commission of the offence. There is admittedly no last seen evidence on record to show that the accused were seen in the company of the deceased near the time of death. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; however, the circumstances relied upon have not been firmly established, nor do they form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, though memorandum statements of the accused were recorded under Ex.P-55 to Ex.P-60, the independent witnesses to such memorandum and seizures, namely Nepal Das (PW-12) and Gopal Das (PW-13), have not supported the prosecution case. They have been declared hostile and have merely admitted their signatures while denying the contents and the proceeding. In the absence of reliable and trustworthy evidence supporting the memorandum and consequential recoveries, the same cannot be safely relied upon. 21. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and all the proved circumstances must form a complete chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. In the present case, 17 the prosecution has failed to prove such a complete chain. The evidence on record creates suspicion at the most, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 22. The learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges on the ground that chain of circumstantial evidence was not so complete to bring home the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of acquittal is based on a proper evaluation of evidence and does not suffer from perversity or misapplication of legal principles. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of 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 18 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 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." 24. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 5 of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC and accused/respondent Nos.6 and 7 of the charge under Sections 148, 120-B, 302/149, 201 of IPC & Sections 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived 19 at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 25. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed, and the acquittal appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.02.19 13:14:15 +0530