1 2026:CGHC:20106-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1086 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Devbhog, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Sita Sonwani W/o Late Sanat Kumar Sonwani Village Rajapara, Devbhog, P.S. Devbhog, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ram esh Sinha, C.J. 30/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General on I.A. No. 1 of 2026 (application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal). 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 04 days in filing the acquittal appeal is condoned. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.01 20:22:49 +0530 2 3. This is an application under Section 419(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner/State for grant of leave to appeal. The present application has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 33/2023, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 03.04.2023, the informant Pradeep Yadu from Community Health Center, Devbhog, lodged a hospital memo at Police Station Devbhog stating that one Sanat Kumar Sonwani had been brought to the hospital by his family members in an injured condition, whereupon the doctor examined him and declared him dead. On the basis of the said information, Morgue No. 12/2023 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and inquest proceedings were initiated. During the course of inquiry, the police conducted spot inspection, prepared the spot map and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report indicated that the death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, on 04.04.2023, First Information Report was registered vide Crime No. 77/2023 at Police Station Devbhog for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, from which it surfaced that the deceased used to consume liquor and quarrel with his wife (the accused) on a daily basis. It was further revealed that on the date of incident, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused in their house. 3 On suspicion, the accused was interrogated and her memorandum statement was recorded, pursuant to which a wooden rolling pin (belan), alleged to have been used in the commission of offence, was seized. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC before the competent Court, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devbhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.). The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was received by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, for trial. The charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, which was denied by her and she claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. 6. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Hence, the present acquittal appeal along with the application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by the State. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would submit that there is sufficient evidence available on record which clearly establishes the involvement of the respondent/accused in the offence in question. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence, particularly the circumstance that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused inside the house. The medical evidence, especially the testimony of the doctor and the post-mortem report, clearly indicates that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature due to strangulation, which corroborates the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the memorandum statement of the accused led to the seizure of the wooden rolling pin (belan) used in the commission of the offence, but the same has not been properly considered by the trial Court. The accused has also failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances under which the deceased died inside the house, which was a fact within her special knowledge. Despite the chain of circumstances being complete and pointing towards the guilt of the accused, the learned trial Court has granted undue benefit of doubt on minor discrepancies and acquitted the accused. The impugned judgment of acquittal is thus perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside. Therefore, the present application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the application for grant of leave to file the acquittal appeal. 5 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances is not complete. The learned trial Court has observed that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that the circumstance of last seen together has not been conclusively proved. It has further been considered that though the medical evidence suggests homicidal death, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The learned trial Court has also doubted the reliability of the memorandum statement and the seizure of the wooden rolling pin, as the same is not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. It has also been taken into account that some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Further, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the accused and excluding every hypothesis of innocence, and therefore, the accused has been given the benefit of doubt. 10. We have again gone through the record produced by the petitioner/State in the present case. It reveals that the prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and none of the witnesses have seen the occurrence. It further appears from the record that even the version put forth by the accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not wholly inconsistent with the overall prosecution evidence, rather the same finds substantial corroboration 6 from the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The accused has explained that on the date of incident the deceased had left the house in the morning and was later informed to be in an intoxicated condition, that he had fallen from a motor cycle and sustained injuries on his body including neck, and that an unknown person was also seen with him who allegedly took away his mobile phone. It is further stated that on receiving information, the deceased was found lying in an unconscious state at the school office, and upon being brought home by the accused along with other witnesses, his condition remained critical. The statements of prosecution witnesses including Manjulata Netam (PW-4), Jaykumar Sahu (PW-14), Khilendra @ Monu Sinha (PW-5) and Kheduram Sinha (PW-11) also broadly indicate that the deceased was heavily intoxicated, had fallen down, was found unconscious, and was subsequently taken to the hospital by the accused. Even the conduct attributed to the accused, including informing the father of the deceased about his condition and promptly arranging for medical assistance, appears to be natural and consistent with the circumstances of a concerned spouse rather than indicative of guilt. In such a factual backdrop, the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution cannot be said to be complete or pointing unerringly towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, and the possibility of an alternative version consistent with innocence cannot be ruled out, thereby reinforcing the view taken by the learned trial Court. 11. From perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased Sanat Kumar Sonwani (Exhibit P-18), it appears that the cause of death has been 7 opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation, suggesting homicidal death; however, the said medical evidence only establishes the nature of death and does not connect the respondent/accused with the commission of the offence. The document (Exhibit P-18) is proved by PW-10/Dr. S.S. Gupta, who has stated that such death could be caused by compression of the neck. However, there is no specific opinion linking the alleged weapon, i.e., the wooden rolling pin (belan), with the injuries found on the deceased. In absence of such definite medical corroboration, the recovery of the alleged weapon at the instance of the accused becomes doubtful. Thus, though the medical evidence indicates homicidal death, it does not conclusively establish the involvement of the accused, and the same creates a doubt in the prosecution case regarding the manner and authorship of the crime. 12. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of Smt. Manjulata Netam (PW-4), Jaykumar Sahu (PW-14) and other prosecution witnesses and has taken note of the discrepancies and inconsistencies in their statements. The learned trial Court has observed that these witnesses have only deposed regarding the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused and about his intoxicated condition, but their testimonies do not conclusively establish the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. It has further been considered that material omissions and contradictions have been brought on record in their cross-examination, which affect the credibility of their evidence. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has held that their evidence is not wholly reliable to base a conviction against the accused. 8 13. By giving benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence available on record, the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Digambar Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, relying upon Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1973) 2 SCC 808 that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be preferred, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar Vaishnav and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522 has held that: “19. It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one binding to the guilt of the accused and the other is to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence [See Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808].” 14. From the overall evidence produced by the prosecution and upon due consideration of the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent/accused, we do not find any 9 perversity, illegality or material infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal and the impugned judgment is not liable to be set aside. 15. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows: "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 16. Further, in case of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under :- 10 “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed 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 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 17. Considering the evidence available on record as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, particularly with regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal and the settled principle that when two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused is to be adopted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish any perversity, illegality or manifest error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be unreasonable or improbable so as to 11 warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, no case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 33/2023 is made out. The application for grant of leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the accompanying acquittal appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved