Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21644-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 150 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - Tasil Ram S/o Natwa Ram, Aged 30 Years R/o Kurdeg (Kadampara), Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Saniyaro Bai W/o Late Shivlal Ram, Aged 32 Years, R/o Kurdeg (Kadampara), Police Station Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. None, though served. Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocate. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 09/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.05.09 18:37:01 +0530 the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31/08/2017 passed 2 by the learned Session Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.14/2017, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 18/11/2015 at 19.30 hours, a merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was lodged by one Surendra Bhagat, the uncle of the deceased-Shivlal, before the Police Station Bagicha stated therein that on 16/11/2015 at 8.00 P.M., the deceased has left the house without intimating anyone, but did not return, therefore, they started searching of him and the dead body of him was ultimately found into the well on 18/11/2015. Based upon the alleged information, an inquiry was conducted and, an FIR (Ex.P/20) was registered on 24/11/2015 against an unknown person. Inquest of the dead body of deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/4 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. C.D. Bakhla (PW-10), who vide his report (Ex.P/5), opined the cause of death has occurred due to asphyxia on account of throttling and, accordingly, it was opined to be homicidal in nature and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against them under the offence mentioned herein- above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the 3 prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and has exhibited 21 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the father of the deceased-Shivlal, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting the respondents as such. 6. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 despite service of notice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has supported the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased- Shivlal had left the house on 16/11/2015 at 8.00 P.M. without intimating any members of his family and when he did not return, a search was made and during the search, the dead body of him was 4 recovered from the well on 18/11/2015. It appears further that the statement (Ex.P/15) of one Abhay Kumar was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, where it was stated by him that when he was taking drink along with others, the respondent No.1-Tasil came and told that he along with the respondent No.2-Saniyaro Bai, who is the wife of the deceased, have murdered the deceased and have thrown his body into the well. But when he was examined before the Court he has, however, failed to state as such. Insofar as the statement of the father of the deceased, namely, Bhagwa (PW-5) is concerned, it shows that the deceased had left the house along with the respondent No.1 on the fateful day at 7.00 P.M., but did not return and, therefore, he has raised a doubt that his son was murdered by the respondent No.1-Tasil. Although, it was stated by him as such, but his statement was, however, not found to be corroborated by others. That apart, the deceased, who had left the house and had gone with him as per the statement of deceased’s further, but as per the PM report (Ex.P/5), he was found to be dead in the morning around 7.00 A.M. on 18/11/2015, however, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that during these 36 hours, he was seen with the deceased. Therefore, it can not be said that he was with the deceased or he could have held liable, as alleged by the deceased’s father. 10. In view of such circumstances and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that the respondents are involved in any manner with regard to alleged offence and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any 5 illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde