Nafr High Court
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.01.07 11:24:53 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:617-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 60 of 2011 Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Sukhram Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o Ekta Chowk, Dubey Colony Mova, P.S. Mova (Pandri) Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through, P.S. Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhatisgarh 2. Preetam Singh Khanuja S/o Sardar Niranjan Singh Khanuja aged about 32 years, 3. Payal Singh Khanuja W/o Preetam Singh Khanuja, aged about 28 years, Non Applicants No. 2 and 3 R/o Besides Sarkar Hotel, Narmada Para District.-Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellant For State/Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3
Legal Reasoning
:None. :Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General :Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate ACQA No. 214 of 2012 State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 2 1 - Preetam Singh Khanuja S/o Sardar Niranjan Singh Khanuja Aged About 32 Years, 2 - Payal Khanuja W/o Preetam Singh Khanuja Aged About 28 Years Both R/o Besides The Lane of Sarkar Hotel, Narmada Para, Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellant For Respondents :Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General :Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 06.01.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. Since, both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 11th June, 2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.57/2009, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the officence punishable under Sections 302 and
Decision
201 read with Section 34 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this order. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2009, one Heeraman Sahu (PW-9) has lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P/19) before the Police Station, Dongargaon of District Rajnandgaon, stating therein, that he received information from one Amruram that one dead body of a woman was lying near the Ulat Dam in burnt condition and, 3 based upon which, he reached there along with the Kotwar- Birjhu Ram and one Ganesh, where he found the dead body of a lady and near the dead body, a bottle filled with acid was lying there. Based upon the alleged merg intimation (Ex.P/19), a numbered merg intimation was registered vide (Ex.P/19-C) and after the merg investigation, First Information Report (Ex.P/73) was registered on 03.03.2009 in connection with Crime No.42/2009 against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P/3 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Pradeep Kumar (PW-24), who in turn, opined the cause of death to be shock due to burn injury and death was held to be homicidal in nature. During investigation, it was found that one missing report (Ex.P/54-C) of Ku. Divya Sahu was lodged by her parents on 04.03.2009 and on due verification, it was found that it was the dead body of said Ku. Divya Sahu. Further investigation reveals that the deceased was having relations with respondent- Preetam Singh and accordingly, the respondents- Preetam Singh and his wife, namely, Payal were arrested and after completion of due investigation, the final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon on 04.06.2009 and the matter was thereafter, committed to the learned Sessions Judge, where the charges have been framed against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the 4 prosecution has examined as many as 30 witnesses and has exhibited 75 documents, while the respondents have examined three witnesses in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that none of the witness, except the relatives of the deceased, have stated that the relation of deceased- Ku. Divya Sahu was with said respondent- Preetam Singh and since it was not corroborated by cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, they are not held to be liable for the alleged offence and accordingly, they have been acquitted. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants, i.e. father of the deceased as well as the State have preferred these appeals. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ State in Acquittal Appeal No.214/2012 submits that the findings of the trial Court, holding that the respondents are not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting them, as such. 7. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in Acquittal Appeal No. 60/2011. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment under appeal as passed by the concerned trial Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 5 perused the entire record carefully. 10. From perusal of the record, it appears that a merg intimation was lodged by one Heraman Sahu (PW-9), marked as Ex.P/19 on 02.03.2009 when he received an information from one Amruram that unknown dead body of a woman is lying near the Ulat Dam and based upon the said information, he along with Kotwar- Birjhu Ram and one Ganesh reached the spot, where they found the dead body of the deceased woman and a bottle filled with acid was also lying there. After the examination of the merg inquiry, the First Information Report (Ex.P/73) was registered on 03.03.2009 against an unknown person in connection with Crime No.42/2009 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and during investigation, it was revealed that one missing report (Ex. P/54-C) was lodged by the parents of the deceased on 04.03.2009, wherein, it has been alleged that their daughter (Ku. Divya Sahu) had gone on 01.03.2009 at 1.00 pm by saying that she is going to her friend, namely, Preetam Singh, but did not return. 11. During investigation, it appears that on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex. P/28) of respondent- Preetam Singh, one vehicle Scorpio along with Mobile and DVD was recovered vide (Ex.P/30) on 05.04.2009 and on the same day, disposal syringe (4 Nos.) and a nylon rope and a lighter were seized vide (Ex.P/31), while knife was also recovered from the spot at his instance vide Ex.P/32. It appears further that on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P/29) of the respondent- Payal, a pair of slipper and a bag was recovered on 04.04.2009 vide Ex.P/33. Those articles were alleged to have been 6 recovered in presence of Ramhu (PW-14) and Shyamu Sen (PW-22) but, they have, however, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution story that the alleged articles were recovered in their presence. Besides, it appears from the statement of the father of the deceased, namely, Vijay Kumar Sahu (PW-10) that his daughter had gone on 01.03.2009 by saying to go her friend’s house, namely, Preetam Singh and based upon which, he lodged the said missing report (Ex.P/54-C) on 04.03.2009 and thereafter, he went to Shirdi along with family members on the next day, i.e. 05.03.2009. Although, it was alleged as such in his said missing report, but has, however, not stated his said version when he was examined before the Court. It appears further from his statement, particularly, paragraph 18 that in the night of 01.03.2009, respondent- Preetam Singh had come to his house and had gone along with his son (Ravindra Kumar Sahu) for searching his daughter (Ku. Divya Sahu) and it was admitted by him that there was no dispute of said Preetam Singh to his daughter- Ku. Divya Sahu. 12. Smt. Shakuntla Sahu (PW-15) is the mother of the deceased and according to her statement, it appears from paragraph 2 that her daughter has gone somewhere else alone. It reveals further from her testimony at paragraph 4, that at 6:00 am on the next day morning, a telephonic call was received by her from said Preetam singh, who inquired whether deceased- Ku. Divya Sahu had returned, to which, it was stated by her that she has come and reiterated the same at paragraph 19 as well by saying that her daughter is sleeping at home. 7 13. Ravindra Kumar Sahu (PW/17) is the brother of the deceased, who has stated at paragraph 4 that he informed his mother that sister Ku. Divya Sahu has gone to her friend’s house, namely, Jyoti Sahu and on the next day morning, when a telephonic call was received by his mother from said Preetam Singh, it was informed to him that his sister has come. 14. In view of the evidence as was led by the relatives of the deceased, it is difficult to hold that on the fateful day, the deceased was with said respondent- Preetam Singh nor, the alleged articles were found to be recovered from him and his wife Payal (respondent). As such, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents are involved in any manner with regard to the commission of the alleged crime and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime 15. In view of the aforesaid background, the appeals being devoid of merit, are accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita