Smt. Kavita Bai Yadav W/o Late Dhan Singh Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pali, District Korba
Case Details
1 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.09.18 13:39:46 +0530 2025:CGHC:46721-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 340 of 2025 Smt. Kavita Bai Yadav W/o Late Dhan Singh Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Patpara, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Gulab Singh S/o Manbharan Singh Kanwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Patpara, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Laxmin Bai W/o Gulab Singh Kanwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Patpara, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Urmila Bai Kanwar W/o Babu Singh Kanwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Patpara, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) (Cause-title is taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 12.09.2025 1.
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the death of deceased Dhansingh Yadav was homicidal in nature as "Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-15) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, Dhansingh Yadav, has found the following injuries: 1. - A laceration on the back of the head 2. - A cut on the left eye 3. - Abrasions on the penis and right knee 4. - Fracture of the hyoid bone and thyroid bone 5. - Swelling on the neck 13. He further opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, and the nature of death was homicidal. The post-mortem report (Ex. P-26) and short post-mortem report (Ex. P-27) were prepared by the doctor. 14. The Trial Court relying the statement of Dr.Anil Kumar (PW-15), has come to the conclusion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 15. So far as the question of involvement of the private respondents/accused in this case is concerned, we have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 16. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the present case and the prosecution witnesses are mere hearsay witnesses and though Kavita Yadav (PW-1) who is the wife of the deceased has merely raised suspicion that the accused are the perpetrator of the crime in question. However, from perusal of the deposition of this witness, there appears to be nothing which may connect the accused persons in the crime in question. 7 17. Mahasingh (PW-2) in his Court testimony merely stated that on 09.07.2020, the deceased came to his house, but he left the house after 10 minutes. On the next day, the dead body of the decease was found hanging. 18. Investigation officer Mangtu Ram Markam (PW-21) in his cross- examination stated that there was no conversation between the deceased's mobile number 7804924129 and Urmila Bai's seized mobile number 8718086131 on 09.07.2020. On 09.07.2020, the deceased's mobile number 7804924129 had a conversation with 956825761, but the SIM was not seized. However, it was informed by the Idea Company official that the SIM was registered in the name of Chironji Lal. The deceased's mobile number 7804924129 had a conversation with mobile number 7354727468 at 19:40 hours and lastly at 20:27 hours. He did not present any information about the person with mobile number 7354727468. Thus, the investigation officers did not conduct any investigation regarding the mobile number 956825761, registered in the name of Chironji Lal, with whom the deceased had a conversation, and the person with mobile number 7354727468, with whom the deceased had a conversation for the last time. No evidence was presented to prove who used the said SIM number and what was the nature of conversation with the deceased. 19. Investigation officer Mangtu Ram (PW-21) in his testimony prepared the seizure memo of the crime scene, including the photographs of the jhuggi, field, bangles, and footprints (Ex. P-9), and the photographs of the deceased's body, slippers, half pants, and gamcha (Ex. P-10), which are marked as Article A-1 to A-10. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not seize the shoes and clothes of the accused persons. 20. From the above testimony of the investigation officer and the perusal of 8 Article A-1 to A-10, it is clear that there are signs of scuffling and footprints inside the jhuggi and in the field. Since the prosecution witnesses testified that the jhuggi was constructed by Mahasingh, the brother of the deceased, for resting and taking shelter during rain and working in the field, and the incident occurred on the night of 9-10 July, which is a time when villagers and women rest and work in the fields during the rainy season. 21. Due to the failure of the investigation officer to seize the shoes and clothes of the accused persons and to present any evidence regarding the matching of the footprints and signs found at the crime scene with those of the accused persons, it is not proved that the footprints and signs found at the crime scene belonged to the accused persons and the deceased. 22. From the above evidence presented by the prosecution, it is clear that no witness testified that the deceased was seen with the accused persons for the last time, and there is no evidence to prove that on the date of the incident, the deceased had a conversation with the accused persons or any of them over the phone or in person, or that there was any dispute between them which could prove the common intention of the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution failed to present any clinching evidence regarding the deceased being seen with the accused persons for the last time. 23. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Versus State of Gujarat and another reported in (2019) 18 SCC 106, that ordinarily, the Appellate Court will not upset the judgment of acquittal, if the view taken by Trial Court is 9 one of the possible views of matter. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- "12. According to the learned counsel for the accused- appellant, the impugned judgment is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Arulvelu because the High Court has set aside the judgment of the Trial Court without pointing out any perversity therein. The said case of Arulvelu related to offences under Sections 304-Band 498-AIPC. Therein, on the scope of the powers of Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, this Court observed as follows: "36. Carefully scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law." 24. The principles aforesaid are not of much debate. In other words, ordinarily, the Appellate Court will not be upsetting the judgment of acquittal, if the view taken by Trial Court is one of the possible views of matter and unless the Appellate Court arrives at a clear finding that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, i.e., not supported by evidence 10 on record or contrary to what is regarded as normal or reasonable; or is wholly unsustainable in law. Such general restrictions are essentially to remind the Appellate Court that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt and a judgment of acquittal further strengthens such presumption in favour of the accused. 25. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 26. Recently in the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para-25 as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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 11 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.” 27. As the Supreme Court has held in the matter of Rohitbhai (supra), Kistoora Ram (supra) and Jafarudheen (supra), an appellate Court should interfere with an acquittal only if the trial Court’s judgment is perverse, clearly illegal, or results in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the trial Court’s findings are reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 28. The learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality by giving benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court does not warrant any interference. 29. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Shubham
Arguments
Heard Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Atanu Ghosh, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1/State. 2 2. This acquittal appeal under Section 413 of BNSS is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 28/2020, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted Respondents No.2 to 4 of offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the deceased's wife, Kavita Bai Yadav (PW-1), lodged a morgue intimation on 10.07.2020, at Chaithma Police Outpost, stating that her husband, Dhansingh Yadav (now deceased), was with her at home until 4:00 p.m. on 09.07.2020. He then went to withdraw money with one Amrit Bai Sarathi. After withdrawing the money, Amrit Bai sat at Janki Bai's house. The deceased later called his wife from Janki Bai's mobile phone, saying he was going to Bhakhar village and would eat at his brother Mahasingh's (PW-2) house, where guests had arrived. At around 7:00 p.m., he called again, saying he was at his brother's house. At around 7:30 p.m., he called his wife and informed her that he was keeping his mobile phone number 7804924129 at home after having dinner and would not be talking further. He did not return home that night, and his mobile phone was found switched off. On the morning of 10.07.2020, his sister-in-law, Lagni Bai (PW-11), informed the complainant (PW-1) that Dhansingh was found hanging from a tree with a nylon rope around his neck, and he had died. The complainant suspected foul play, alleging that her husband had previously been threatened by appellants Laxmin Bai and Gulab Singh due to a dispute over an alleged illicit relationship. A dispute had occurred between deceased Dhansingh and appellant Gulab Singh 15 days prior to the incident. Based on the complaint, a morgue intimation was registered. During the investigation, the site 3 plan (Ex. P-8) was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The dead body of Dhansingh Yadav was sent to CHC Palli for post-mortem examination. The doctor provided a short post-mortem report (Ex. P- 27) and post-mortem examination report (Ex. P-26), opining that the death was due to strangulation. During the morgue inquiry, photographs of the dead body, slippers, half pants, and gamcha were taken in the presence of witnesses (Ex. P-10). Photographs of the crime scene, including bangles and footprints, were also taken (Ex. P- 9). A numbered morgue intimation (68/20) was registered at Police Station Palli. During the investigation, evidence was found suggesting that the accused, Gulab Singh, his wife Laxmi Bai, and another woman, Urmila Bai, had conspired to commit the murder. The accused were found to have contacted the deceased on his mobile phone and lured him to the crime scene. The main accused, Gulab Singh, allegedly planned the murder with his wife, Laxmin Bai, who enticed the deceased to have physical relations with her. During the act, Gulab Singh allegedly strangled the deceased, while Laxmi Bai held his private parts. The three accused then allegedly dragged the deceased to a nearby muddy area, tied a nylon rope around his neck, and hung him from a tree. Based on this evidence, an FIR (Ex. P-36) was registered under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the IPC. The investigation team prepared crime details (Ex. P-4) and recorded the memorandum statements of the accused (Ex. P-11, 12, and 13). The accused's mobile phones and bangles were seized (Ex. P-18, 19, 20, 21, and 22). The accused were arrested and their arrest memos were prepared (Ex. P-23 to 25). The seized articles were sent to the FSL for examination, and the report was received (Ex. P-41). Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and the 4 respondents No. 2 to 4 were arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, from where it stood transferred to Sessions Court for trial. 4. Charges were framed against the respondents no. 2 to 4 and the same were read over and explained to the respondents, all the respondents pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. 5. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. The prosecution also exhibited 43 documents and material evidence. The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied all allegations and claimed to be innocent. However, in support of their case, they exhibited 9 documents (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-9). 7. Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment of acquittal has acquitted respondents no. 2 to 4 of the charges as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the complainant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, this Court nevertheless possesses wide powers to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. The settled legal position is that if, upon such reappraisal, it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence, then the appellate Court is well within its jurisdiction to reverse the acquittal and record conviction. An acquittal that results from ignoring vital evidence, misreading the testimony of material witnesses, or by giving undue 5 weight to trivial inconsistencies cannot be allowed to stand. She further submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in discarding the testimony of Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-15) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and clearly stated in his report that the death is asphyxia as a result of strangulation and also found many injuries on the body of the deceased. The preparation of spot map, seizure of articles including the mobile phones of the accused, are strong corroborative circumstances which the trial Court has failed to appreciate in their proper perspective. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned trial Court has laid undue emphasis on minor omissions and contradictions appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity inasmuch as they are against the weight of evidence and based on conjectures. The acquittal has resulted from misappreciation of material evidence and incorrect application of legal principles. Such a perverse and unjust acquittal calls for interference by the appellate Court in exercise of its powers under law. The corroborative medical and circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the guilt of respondents No.2 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt. The order of acquittal, therefore, deserves to be set aside, and the respondents no. 2 to 4 be convicted and punished under the offences for which they were charged. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for State/Respondent No.1 has supported the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the Appellant, while none is present on behalf of the Accused/Respondents No.2 to 4. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 6 12.