1 2026:CGHC:20398-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 430 of 2023 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Pasta Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kaliram S/o Late Manbodh Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Kotsari Katthaprara, Police Chouki Doura, Police Station Pasta Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 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 Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 01/05/2026 1. This is an application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner/State for grant of leave to appeal. The present application has been preferred Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.02 11:25:13 +0530 2 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.09.2022, passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019, arising out of FIR No. 59/2018 registered at Police Station Pasta, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 19.10.2018, the informant Mohar Sai lodged an information at Police Chowki Doura, Police Station Pasta, stating that during the Nawakhai festival, upon returning home in the evening, he found his grandmother, Smt. Belsi @ Kayaso, lying in a pool of blood inside the house. On the basis of the said information, Morgue Intimation 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. Thereafter, an FIR was registered vide Crime No. 59/2018 at Police Station Pasta for the offence under Sections 450 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and suspicion was raised against the accused Kali Ram. The accused was interrogated and his memorandum statement was recorded, pursuant to which a tangia (axe) alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was seized. After completion of 3 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. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was received by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for trial. The charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, which was denied by him and he claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. 4. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 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. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would submit that there is sufficient evidence available on record which establishes the 4 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 memorandum statement of the accused leading to the recovery of the tangia (axe) allegedly used in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the seizure of the said weapon, coupled with the forensic report indicating the presence of human blood on it, lends corroboration to the prosecution case, which has not been duly considered by the trial Court. It is also contended that the trial Court has erred in disbelieving the prosecution case on the basis of minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses. According to the learned counsel, the circumstances brought on record form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside, and therefore, the present application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed. 6. 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. 7. 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 5 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 presence of the accused at the place of occurrence at the relevant time has not been established, thereby ruling out the applicability of the last seen theory. It has further been considered that the medical evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution case, as the injuries found on the body of the deceased were lacerated in nature and could be caused by a fall on a hard surface, and no definite opinion was given connecting the injuries with the alleged weapon. The learned trial Court has also doubted the reliability of the memorandum statement and the seizure of the tangia (axe), as the same is not sufficiently corroborated and the blood found on the weapon has not been conclusively linked with that of the deceased. It has also been taken into account that key witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have not implicated the accused. 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. 8. We have again gone through the record produced by the petitioner/State in the present case. It reveals that the prosecution 6 case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and none of the witnesses have seen the occurrence. It further appears from the record that the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence at the relevant time has not been established, rather the evidence on record indicates that the accused was attending the Nawakhai festival at a different place. The statements of prosecution witnesses, including Mohar Sai (PW-3), Smt. Kamla (PW-2) and Bifni Bai (PW-8), support the version that the accused was not present in the house at the time of the incident. It is also evident that key witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have not specifically implicated the accused in the commission of the offence. The medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report, suggests that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were lacerated in nature and could be caused by a fall on a hard surface, and no definite opinion has been given connecting the injuries with the alleged weapon. Though the memorandum statement of the accused led to the seizure of a tangia (axe), the same is not conclusively connected with the crime, as the blood found on the weapon has not been established to be that of the deceased. 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 7 ruled out, thereby reinforcing the view taken by the learned trial Court. 9. From perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased Smt. Belsi @ Kayaso (Exhibit P-17), it appears that the cause of death has been opined to be due to excessive hemorrhage leading to cardiac arrest; however, the said medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the death was homicidal in nature and rather indicates the possibility of accidental injuries. The document (Exhibit P-17) is proved by PW-13/Dr. Vivek Sharma, who has stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were lacerated in nature and could be caused by a fall on a hard and blunt surface. It is further evident that no specific opinion has been given linking the alleged weapon, i.e., the tangia (axe), 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 establishes the cause of 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. 10. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of Mohar Sai (PW-3), Smt. Kamla (PW-2), Bifni Bai (PW-8) and other prosecution witnesses and has taken note of the discrepancies and inconsistencies in their statements. The learned trial Court 8 has observed that these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have not deposed about the accused being present with the deceased at the relevant time, rather their testimonies indicate that the accused was away from the house attending the Nawakhai festival. It has further been considered that material omissions and contradictions have been brought on record in their cross-examination, and some witnesses have even expressed ignorance regarding the manner in which the deceased sustained injuries. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has held that their evidence is not wholly reliable to base a conviction against the accused. 11. 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: 9 “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].” 12. 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 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. 13. 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: 10 "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." 14. 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 :- “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 11 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." 15. 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 warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 16. Consequently, no case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019 is made out. The application 12 for grant of leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the accompanying acquittal appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok