High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.09.10 16:17:10 +0530 ACQA No. 259 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 20.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 10.09.2025 NAFR • Shobharam Sahu, S/o Satruhan Sahu Sahu, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant versus 1. Kejau Sahu, S/o Bauli Sahu, aged about 55 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Meghaiya Sahu, W/o Kejau Sahu, aged about 55 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3. Anant Ram Sahu, S/o Keshav Sahu, aged about 52 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4. Mahendra Kumar Sahu alias Lallu Sahu, S/o Ramsnehi Sahu, aged about 42 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5. Kirti Kumar alias Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o Lauhan Lal Sahu, aged about 47 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6. Suresh Sahu, S/o Vrindavan Sahu, aged about 51 Years, R/o Village Junapani, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Deepanjali Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. ACQA No. 482 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Lormi, Distt.- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 2 1. Kejau Sahu, S/o Bouli Sahu, aged about 55 Years, 2. Smt. Meghaiya, W/o Kejau Sahu, aged about 52 Years, 3. Anantram Sahu, S/o Keshav Sahu, aged about 52 Years, 4. Mahendra Kumar@ Lallu Sahu, S/o Ramsanehi Sahu, aged about 42 Years, 5. Kirti Kumar@ Rajju@ Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, aged about 47 Years, 6. Suresh Sahu, S/o Vrindavan Sahu, aged about 51 Years, All are R/o Junapani, Police Station- Lormi Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. Since both the acquittal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial No.50/2014, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the above-captioned acquittal appeals filed by the State & complainant respectively arise out of the same judgment dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.50/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 6 of the charge under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. 19.09.2014, while deceased- Nohar Sahu along with his wife- Shivkumari (PW-14) was working in the field, at that time, due to previous enmity, accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 6 came there and assaulted the deceased with Tabbal (battle axe), axe and stick, by which, deceased 3 sustained grievous injuries over his body and died. Thereafter, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-23) was registered and merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-16. FIR was registered against the accused- Kejau Sahu and his wife/accused-Meghaiya Sahu vide Ex.P-22. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and thereafter, postmortem was conducted over the dead body of deceased by Dr. R.S. Ayam (PW-9) vide Ex.P-12 opining that cause of death of deceased was shock due to homicidal injuries and excessive haemorrhage and mode of death was homicidal in nature. 4. During investigation, accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were taken into custody vide Exs.P-24 to 29 respectively. Vide Ex.P-3 memorandum statement of accused- Kejau Sahu was recorded, pursuant to which, one blood like stained Tabbal (battle axe) was seized vide Ex.P-4. Vide Ex.P-7, full shirt of accused- Kejau Sahu was seized. Vide Ex.P-11, shirt and sleepers of deceased were seized. No memorandum statement of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were recorded, nor any seizure was effected from them. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-34), blood has been found on the shirt of the deceased. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted, the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them. 7. Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant would jointly submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons / 4 respondents No.1 to 6 herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. They would further submit that there is sufficient evidence available on record, particularly, the evidence of PW-13 Johan Sahu, PW-14 Shiv Kumari, who is said to be the eye-witness to the incident and PW-15 Satruhan Sahu, to establish that on the date of incident, respondents No.1 to 6, pursuant to unlawful assembly, committed the murder of deceased-Nohar Sahu and despite that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons / respondents No.1 to 6 without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons / respondents No.1 to 6 would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-13 Johan Sahu, PW-14 Shiv Kumari and PW-15 Satruhan Sahu with respect to alleged incident. He would also submit that witnesses to memorandum and seizure namely PW-1 Jadish and PW-3 Janakram have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and that no human blood has been found on the alleged seized battle axe, therefore, the alleged recovery of battle axe is no use to the prosecution. He would also submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondents No.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused persons / respondents No.1 to 6 of the charges leveled against them. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State/appellant be dismissed. 5 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. 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 enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 11. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting respondents No.1 to 6 of the charges leveled against them? 12. PW-14 Shiv Kumari, wife of the deceased and claimed to be an eye-witness to the incident has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, at about 4:00 pm, while she along with her husband/deceased was returning from the field, at that time, all the accused persons stopped them, forcibly dragged the deceased to the courtyard of accused-Kejau where accused- Kejau assaulted the deceased with a battle axe, while accused-Anant and Suresh assaulted him with axe and accused-Lallu assaulted him with sticks. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, she admitted that at the time of incident, she was at home and after hearing the incident, she closed the door of her house. This witness has also stated that at the time of incident, other villagers were also working nearby her field, but none of them have supported the prosecution's version. Furthermore, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C (Ex.D-1), the specific names of five accused persons are also not mentioned nor it is mentioned that they assaulted the deceased with 6 dagger and knife. Thus, from the evidence of PW-14 Shiv Kumari, it is clear that she is not an eye-witness to the incident and her credibility as an eye-witness is highly doubtful. 13. This apart, PW-13 Johan Sahu has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 19.09.2015, his sister-in-law/Shivkumari (PW-14) had informed him that while she and deceased were returning from the field, at that time, accused persons namely Anant, Rajju, Lallu, Suresh and Kejau came there, abused the deceased filthily, forcibly dragged him to the courtyard of accused-Kejau and assaulted him with a battle axe, stick, dagger and knife and also committed marpeet with him, but on the other hand, PW-14 Shivkumari has stated that she had informed her elder brother-in-law / Satruhan Sahu (PW-15) about the incident, whereas PW-15 Satruhan Sahu has stated that he and PW-14 Shivkumari had informed PW-13 Johan Sahu about the incident over telephone. This inconsistency with regard to incident raises doubt regarding the credibility of their statements. 14. Thus, from the evidence of above witnesses, it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-13 Johan Sahu, PW-14 Shiv Kumari and PW-15 Satruhan Sahu and their evidence do not corroborate with each other and the documents available on record with respect to alleged incident, therefore, creditability of their evidence is doubtful. Besides above, pursuant to the memorandum statement of accused- Kejau, one battle axe was seized and the same was sent to FSL for chemical examination, but as per FSL report, no human blood has been found on the seized battle axe. This apart, no seizure was effected from the other accused persons No. 2 to 6 to unfold the incident. Moreover, PW-9 Dr. R.S. Ayam has stated that he examined the seized battle axe and gave a query report (Ex.P-13). According to him, the 7 measurements of the seized battle axe were taken accurately and not on guesswork. He has further stated that the battle axe which he examined had a straight sharp edge, whereas as per sketch made in seizure memo (Ex.P-4), the seized battle axe was shown to be curved. Furthermore, PW-9 Dr. R.S. Ayam has also stated that the length of the handle of battle axe was 7.5 inch, whereas in seizure memo (Ex.P-4), it was mentioned as 6.5 inch. These inconsistencies in description casts a serious doubt on the authenticity of seized article. Besides, witnesses to memorandum and seizure namely PW-1 Jadish and PW-3 Janakram have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 15. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove all the facts of the charges leveled against the respondents No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 6 of the aforesaid charges leveled against them. 16. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 6 of the aforesaid Sections is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 17. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State as well as the complainant against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 6 are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh