State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, District Korba (C.G.) v. 1 - Shailendra Jogi S/o Late Badrinanth Jogi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.04 17:54:19 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:38284-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 22 of 2013 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Shailendra Jogi S/o Late Badrinanth Jogi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Rahaud, PS Shivrinarayan District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Charauda, Panchsheel Nagar, PS Bhilai, District Durg (CG) 2 - K. Sumeshwar Rao S/o K. Krishna Rao Aged About 27 Years R/o G. Cabin Charauda Bhilai, PS G.R.P., District : Durg (C.G.) 3 - Lepki Bai @ Parbatiya Wd/o Late Shankar Tandi Aged About 28 Years R/o Charauda, Ganesh Chowk, G. Cabin, PS G.R.P. Bhilai, District : Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State For Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer : Shri Leekesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 04.08.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 05.03.2012, passed by the Special 2 Session Judge (Atrocities), Korba [under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989] in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2010, whereby, the respondent No.1-Shailendra Jogi and respondent No.2- K. Sumeshwar Rao, have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), while respondent No.3- Lepki Bai @ Parbatiya, the wife of the deceased- Shankar Tandi under Sections 302/34, 120-B and 201 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents No.1- Shailendra Jogi and respondent No.2-K. Sumeshwar Rao, have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, while respondent No.3- Lepki Bai @ Parbatiya, the wife of the deceased-Shankar Tandi, under Sections 302/34, 120-B and 201 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the wife of the deceased, namely, Lepki Bai @ Parbatiya, was having illicit relations with Shailendra Jogi, the respondent No.1 herein and in order to eliminate the deceased- Shankar Tandi, the husband of respondent No.3- Lepki Bai @ Parbatiya, said Shailendra Jogi, respondent No.1, along with his friend- K. Sumeshwar Rao, respondent No.2 herein, had come to the house of the deceased on the fateful day, i.e. in the intervening night of 29.12.2008 and 30.12.2008 in between 10.00 pm to 7.00 am and knocked the door, which was opened by his wife- Lepki Bai @ Parbatiya and both the accused persons, thereafter, entered the house of the deceased, who was sleeping at that particular time and, the 3 respondents No. 1 and 2 strangulated the neck of him with the aid of nylon rope and after killing him, have thrown the dead body in the garbage, situated nearby the house. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the minor daughter of the deceased, namely, Ku. Sushma (PW-1), aged about 8 years, was examined and it appears from her testimony that on the said fateful day, the respondents- Shailendra Jogi and K. Sumeshwar Rao had knocked the door of the house, which was opened by her mother and thereafter, respondent No.1- Shailendra Jogi has tied up the hands and legs of her father with the aid of rope and mouth of him was tapped and, she stated further that both, Shailendra Jogi and K. Sumeshwar Rao, dragged him outside while pulling the rope tight on his neck. Further of her testimony would show that, she informed the alleged incident to her grand-mother, namely, Balika (PW-12). Although, it was stated by her that when her mother opened the door, respondent No.1- Shailendra Jogi has tied up the hands and legs of her father with the aid of rope and tapped his mouth, but the said fact was, however, not revealed from her statement (Ex.D-1), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. That apart, it reveals from para 13 of her testimony that, in fact, she was not aware whether her father had gone to the duty on the said fateful day or not. 4. It is to be noted further that although, it was stated by her (PW-1) that the alleged incident was disclosed by her to her grand-mother – Balika, but from her statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it appears that she informed the alleged incident to her maternal-aunt (Bua), namely, Laita and one Priest of the Temple also, but in order to corroborate her statement, said maternal-aunt, was not examined by 4 the prosecution and, insofar as the Priest, namely, T. Vasudev Rao (PW-14) is concerned, he has, however, not stated that he was informed by her. 5. It is to be seen further that when the inquest of the dead body was conducted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, namely, Madhav Prasad Tiwari (PW-9), the statement of deceased’s mother, namely, Balika Tandi, the grand-mother of Ku. Sushma (PW-1) and, the statement of her (PW-1) was recorded, but, he, however, did not get any evidence against the respondents that they are involved in connection with the alleged crime. Further, although, the alleged rope was seized from the respondent No.2- K. Sumeshwar Rao on 09.10.2009, vide Ex. P-12 in presence of two witnesses, namely, T. Vasudev Rao (PW-14) and Loknath Beniyam (PW-7), but both have, however, turned hostile without supporting the alleged seizure. 6. In view of such circumstances, it is, difficult to place reliance upon the testimony of the deceased’s daughter, namely, Ku. Sushma (PW-1) in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime and, the trial Court, has therefore, not committed any illegality in not relying upon her testimony, while acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita