High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.08.05 15:14:55 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AFR ACQA No. 64 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 22.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on 05.08.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the In-charge Police Station Darbha, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. versus ...Appellant 1. Muchaki Deva, S/o Muchaki Pinde, aged about 38 Years, R/o Village Bhardrimahu Patel Para, Police Station Darbha, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2. Vijja Podyami, S/o Hando Podiyami, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Bhardrimahu Patel Para, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Ms. Isha Khandelwal, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Anushree Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the State/appellant arises out of the judgment dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989') Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.108/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charge under Sections 8(1)(3)(5) of the 2 Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1908). 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.09.2015 at around 4:30 a.m., the Station House Officer of Police Station Darbha along with the police staff and a patrolling team of the STF, proceeded towards Koleng, Chandamota and Badangpal areas to conduct a search operation for absconding accused persons. On 14.09.2015, while returning from patrolling, the team found two individuals hiding behind bushes near village Bhadrimahu. They were apprehended and upon interrogation, the accused disclosed that they are active members of the banned Maoist organization. On the basis of information given by respondent No.1- Muchaki Deva, one tiffin-bomb, batteries and wires were recovered vide Ex.P-4. Memorandum statement of the accused/respondent No.2- Vijja Podiyami was recorded vide Ex.P-6, pursuant to which, one tiffin-bomb was recovered from the backyard of his house in village Bhadrimahu and the same was seized vide Ex.P-5. Thereafter, vide Ex.P-13, a Dehati Nalisi and vide Ex.P-15 spot map Ex.P-15 were prepared. Subsequently, First Information Report (Ex. P-9) was registered against the accused persons and they were taken into custody vide Exs.P-7 & P-8 respectively. 3. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The seized explosive materials were destroyed with the assistance of the Bomb Disposal Squad (BDS). Soil samples both plain and from the site of the explosion were collected vide Ex.P-3 and thereafter sent it to FSL Raipur for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons 3 before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 19 documents connecting the accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, accused persons have examined none, but exhibited four documents i.e. D-1 to D-4. 5. 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. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant / State would submit that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents despite sufficient evidence regarding the seizure of explosive materials and their link to the accused persons, which is also evident from the statements of PW-4 Talesphore Minj, PW-5 Nirmal Kumar and PW-10 Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Investigating Officer. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons / respondents would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-4 Talesphore Minj, PW-5 Nirmal Kumar and PW-10 Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Investigating Officer and their statements do not corroborate with each other. He would further submit that FSL report has not been brought on record by the prosecution during trial and before passing of the impugned judgment. He would also submit that prosecution has 4 miserably failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused persons / respondents of the charges leveled against them. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State/appellant be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 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.” 10. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them? 11. PW-10 Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Investigating Officer, has stated that on 14.09.2015, while returning from the patrolling, he along with other police personnel found two individuals hiding behind bushes near village Bhadrimahu and after that, they apprehended the accused persons. He has further stated that based on the information given by respondent No.1- Muchaki Deva, he recovered one tiffin-bomb, batteries and wires at his instance vide Ex.P-4. He has also stated that he had recorded the memorandum statement of the accused/respondent No.2- Vijja Podyami on the spot, pursuant to which, one tiffin-bomb was recovered from the 5 backyard of his house in village Bhadrimahu and had done all the paper- work sitting beside the footpath. However, on the contrary, PW-4 Talesphore Minj, Head Constable and PW-5 Nirmal Thakur, Constable, members of the searching party and the witnesses to alleged proceedings of seizure and memorandum, have admitted in their cross- examinations that all the paper-work proceedings of alleged seizure and memorandum were prepared at the police station and all the relevant documents have been signed by them at the police station itself and not at the spot. These contradictory statements cast a serious doubt on the genuineness and legality of the seizure proceedings. Furthermore, PW-10 Durgesh Kumar Sharma has stated that the tiffin-bomb was planted at the location where the accused persons were apprehended, but on the contrary, PW-5 Nirmal Kumar has stated that the tiffin-bomb was planted on the road about 1 km ahead from the place where the accused persons were apprehended, while PW-4 Talesphore Minj has stated that the tiffin-bomb along with the battery wire was recovered from a pit located 15-20 metres ahead on the road. These contradictory statements also raise a serious doubt regarding the exact location of seizure of alleged articles from the accused persons. Moreover, the seizure memos (Exs.P-4 & P-5) do not reflect that in what manner or from where exactly the alleged articles were recovered. Besides above, vide Ex.P-2, the alleged seized explosive materials were destroyed with the assistance of the Bomb Disposal Squad (BDS) and soil samples both plain and from the site of the explosion were collected vide Ex.P-3 and thereafter sent to FSL Raipur for chemical analysis, however, during trial, the FSL report was neither produced nor exhibited by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court cannot take cognizance of those documents which were not proved and 6 exhibited by the prosecution during trial. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the seized substances/soil samples, comprising plain soil and soil collected from the site of the explosion, contained any explosive substance. 12. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-10 Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Investigating Officer and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of PW-4 Taleshpore Minj and PW-5 Nrimal Kumar, who were members of searching party as well as witnesses to alleged seizure and memorandum proceedings and his (PW-10) statement also does not corroborate with the documents available on record with respect to search, seizure and investigation, thereby rendering his version doubtful and untrustworthy. Further, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the involvement of the accused persons/respondents in the crime in question. If the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the prosecution was based on suspicion, however, suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof. 13. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence come to the conclusion that there is no direct evidence on record to establish that the accused persons/respondents were in the possession of explosive material at the relevant time and that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized substance was an explosive substance and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the said charges leveled against them as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. After considering the material available on record as well as the 7 elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of the aforesaid charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh