State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station, Gurur District- Balod (CG) v. 1 - Chhaganlal S/o Dukhuram Sahu, Aged about 35 years, 2 - Hiralal S/o
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.04.04 10:32:08 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:15640-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 184 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station, Gurur District- Balod (CG) ...Appellant versus 1 - Chhaganlal S/o Dukhuram Sahu, Aged about 35 years, 2 - Hiralal S/o Ramadhin Yadav, Aged About 42 Years Both R/o Village Amera, Police Station Gurur, District- Balod (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State For Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 03.04.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 17.09.2013, passed by the 2 nd 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.14/2013, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.01.2013, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by one Narayan Sahu, father of the deceased- Hemant Sahu, before the Police Station, Gurur, stating therein, that his son had gone on 23.01.2013 around 7.00 pm after receiving some mobile calls, but did not return by night and on the next day, i.e. 24.01.2013, has seen some persons going towards the High School of village Chhediya, where he also went and seen his son found dead while hanging and, based upon the alleged information, an inquiry was conducted and thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-20) was registered on 16.02.2013 against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-11 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. G.R. Rawate (PW-4), who vide his report (Ex.P-17) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia which occurred due to constriction of neck by a ligature without suspending the body, resulting cardio-respiratory arrest, and accordingly, it was opined to be homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, motorcycle and a mobile set of respondent No.1- Chhaganlal was recovered from him, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-6) and, based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-7) of respondent No.2- Hiralal, the mobile set, owned by the deceased was searched into the pond, but that was not found to 3 be recovered vide Panchanama (Ex.P-13). After completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod against the respondents for commission of the offence mentioned herein-above and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where charges have been framed against the respondents under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, which were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents, while none was examined by them in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statements of Shyam Bai (PW-5) and others’, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents, as such. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the deceased- Hemant Sahu had left the house on 23.01.2013 in the evening around 7.00 pm, when he received certain mobile calls, but did not return by night and upon search, he was found to be dead on 24.01.2013, which compelled his father to lodge the intimation (Ex.P-1) on 24.01.2013 and after its inquiry, an FIR (Ex.P-20) was registered only on 16.02.2013 and that too, against an unknown person. Although, the attesting witnesses in whose presence, the motorcycle and mobile set, owned by respondent No.1- Chhaganlal, was recovered from him, but no presumption can be drawn against him based upon the alleged recoveries, particularly when the mobile set owned by the deceased alleged to have been thrown into the pond as per the disclosure statement (Ex.P-7) of respondent No.2- Hiralal was not recovered vide Panchanama (Ex.P-13) in order to verify the alleged call details. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. 9. Insofar as the statement of Shyam Bai (PW-5) is concerned, though, she has stated that on the said fateful day, i.e. 23.01.2013, she 5 has seen the deceased along with the respondents on the moon night, but has failed to identify them when she was examined before the Court, nor the identification parade of theirs was conducted. The respondents have, therefore, could not be identified and based upon her testimony, it cannot be said that the respondents were there with the deceased on the said fateful day. The statements of other witnesses are formal in nature. The prosecution has, thus, failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that the respondents are in any manner involved in connection with the alleged crime, occurred on 23.01.2013. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita