State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Kawasi Joga @ Pada S/o Kawasi Koya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.23 15:28:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:34809-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 79 of 2016 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Kawasi Joga @ Pada S/o Kawasi Koya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Chandameta, Andalpara, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhima Madkami @ Bogal, S/o Singa, Aged About 23 Years, Caste Mariya, R/o Chandameta, Andalpara, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pardesi Sodi, S/o Mahadev @ Askati, Aged About 35 Years, Caste Gond, R/o Chandameta, Andalpara, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 22/07/2025 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 05/10/2015, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG) in Sessions Case No.24/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 307/149 of IPC read 2 with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Arms Act’). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 11/04/2014, the police party had gone for searching the suspected persons in connection with the Criminal Case No.25/2013 and 51/2013 towards the village- Elangar, Badanpal, Chewrwada, Tulsidongri and while returning on 14/04/2014, in the evening around 04:00 PM, in the mountains forest of Chandameta and Chhindgur, the banned naxalites, who were ambushing therein, had started firing suddenly upon them in order to commit their murder and to save themselves, and, in retaliation, the police party had also fired upon them and during the said period, one Maniram Korram S/o Chalki Madiya was taken into custody. It is alleged further that on the basis of the disclosure statement of said Maniram Korram, it was revealed that other fellow accused persons namely, Laxman, Bogal Madkami, Malla, Dulla, Boti of village- Chandameta, and Bijja, Pojja and Kosa of village- Bhadrimahu and other banned naxalites, had opened the fire upon them. Based upon the alleged incident, a Dehati Nalishi was lodged and, an FIR (Ex.P/9) was registered against said Maniram Korram and others and after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against respondent No.1- Kawasi Joga @ Pada, respondent No.2- Bhima Madkami @ Bogal and respondent No.3- Pardesi Sodi, under Section 307/149 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and, the charges so framed were denied by 3 them and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the respondents in connection with the alleged crime, occurred on 14/04/2014 and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents were not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such, from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. From perusal fo the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 307/149 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act with regard to the incident occurred on 14/04/2014 at 04:00 PM. According to the prosecution, when one of the accused persons, namely, Maniram Korram involved in firing at the relevant point of time, 4 was arrested and based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/1), the nicknames of the respondents were disclosed by him and, accordingly, they have been arrested and charge-sheeted as mentioned herein- above. 8. A bare perusal of the disclosure statement (Ex.P/1) of said Maniram Korram would, however, reveal the fact that, he has mentioned only the nicknames of the respondents, whereas, such names are so common in the Bastar region, therefore, the possibility of involvement of other persons instead of the present accused, cannot be fully ruled out. It appears further that his statement was recorded on 14/04/2014 in presence of two persons, namely, Sunil Behar and Dharamraj, who have, however, not been examined for corroborating his disclosure statement. Even otherwise, despite the recording of his said statement on 14/04/2014, the respondents No.1 and 2 have been arrested on 08/01/2015, while respondent No.3- Pardesi has been arrested on 27/01/2015, i.e., 08 months after recording his statement. 9. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the statement of Durgesh Sharma (PW-4), the Investigating Officer, particularly paragraph 50, that at the time of firing in the alleged forest, he had failed to identify the persons, who were firing at that particular time and, it appears further from his testimony that he has mentioned the names of the persons, disclosed by said Maniram Korram during the interrogation. It reveals further from para 49 of his testimony, that neither the name of Pardesi Sodi, the respondent No.3, nor the name of Bhima Madkami @ Bogal, the respondent No.2, were mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/9), lodged on 15/04/2014, though as per the disclosure 5 statement (Ex.P/1) of said Maniram Korram, he was aware of the names of said respondents No.2 and 3 on 14.04.2014, but instead, the name of Kawasi Joga, respondent No.1 alone was mentioned therein. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that at the time of recording the statement of said Maniram Korram, the nicknames of the respondents have, infact, been disclosed by him, else the names of respondents No.2 and 3 must have been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/9). It appears further from his testimony that, he has not identified those persons, who were firing at that particular time. Though, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to get the identification parade done in order to ascertain the involvement of actual accused persons, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the same was, however, not carried out and, only on the basis of nicknames, as was disclosed by said Maniram Korram, the respondents have been implicated in connection with the alleged crime, occurred on 14/04/2014. 10. It is to be seen further that recovery of weapon was not made from the respondents, yet they have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, nor any confessional statement of theirs’ have been placed on record, so as to hold that the respondents are in any manner were involved for the commission of the alleged crime. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant