Station House Officer, Police Station- Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Subhash Sharma
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48734-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 47 of 2014 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.26 14:16:25 +0530 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station- Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Subhash Sharma (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 23-07-2025. 2 - Ajit Singh Rajput, S/o. P.S. Rajput, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Ward No. 13 Sindhori, Police Station- Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant For Respondents : : Mr. R.S.Marhas, Addl. A.G. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (23.09.2025) 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. Admit Issue notice to the respondents.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The appellant has preferred acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, by which the respondent No.1 (died & deleted) and respondent No.2 acquitted from the offence under Sections 302/23 & 323/34 (twice) of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 27.03.2013 at 5:40 P.M. in front of house of Parikshit near Bhairav Mandir, Ward No.12, Bemetara, two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Kishan (now deceased), as respondent No.1 assaulted by iron rod and respondent No.2 assaulted by hand & fist, by which deceased Kishan suffered grievous injuries and he was escorted to the 3 hospital wherein he was declared dead. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-20, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-19, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.15 and dead body of deceased Kishan was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S.K.Sharma (PW-7), who proved the post- mortem report vide Ex.P-11, according to which, cause of death was stated to be intracerebral hemorrhage and neurogenic shock due to blunt injury back of head left side and death was homicidal in nature. Kamla Bai (PW-5) and Goverdhan Netam (PW-14), injured eye-witness, were also medically examined vide Ex.P-26 & Ex.P-27. Spot map was prepared by Kamesh Sharma (PW-14) vide Ex.P-21. Pursuant to memorandum statement of Sonu @ Golu, iron pipe was seized vide Ex.P-6 and motorcycle was seized vide Ex.P-4 as per the memorandum statement of Subhash Sharma (R-1). The seized iron pipe was sent for chemical examination to FSL, but no blood was found on the seized iron pipe as per the FSL report (Ex.P-34). 3. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents and the accused/respondents in support of their defence have not 4 examined any witness but have exhibited documents Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral & documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused/ respondents No.1 & 2, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the State. 5. Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the appellant/State, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave illegality in acquitting Subhash Sharma (died & deleted) and Ajit Singh Rajput by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and submit that though Sagar (PW-6), Kamla Netam (PW-5) & Arjun Sahu (PW-3) have turned hostile, but injured brother of the deceased Gowardhan Netam (PW-14) and Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24) have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court ought to have recorded conviction and as such, the appeal be allowed setting aside the acquittal order. 6. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned judgment and submit that Gowardhan Netam (PW-14) who is alleged eye-witness has reported the matter to the police on the basis of statement of 5 Sagar (PW-6) & Kamla Netam (PW-5) but both have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court is absolutely justified in not relying the testimony of Gowardhan (PW-14). Furthermore, the trial Court is also justified in not relying the statement of Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24), as according to the statement of Kamlesh Sharma (PW-15), Patwari, who had prepared the spot map, the place of incident could not be seen from the place where Dev Kumar (PW-24) was sitting in his shop and further he has criminal background and, therefore, the trial Court has cogent reason to disbelieve the testimony and there is no such other statement to believe. Furthermore, with respect to Subhash Sharma (Respondent No.1), the appeal has been declared abated and only allegation of causing injury by hand & fist was leveled against Ajit Singh Rajput (Respondent No.1), therefore, acquittal order of the trial Court is in accordance with law. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. At the very outset, we would firstly consider the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, 6 for which, it would be profitable to notice the relevant principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand 1 , whereby in Para-11 & 12 it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence etc. and observed as under: “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.