Smt. Indra Kunwar, W/o Late Devi Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village- Poksari v. 1 - Mangeshwar Singh, R/o Village- Poksari Thana- Batouli District- Ambikapur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:845-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1110 of 2024 Smt. Indra Kunwar, W/o Late Devi Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village- Poksari Thana- Batouli District- Ambikapur (Sarguja) C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Mangeshwar Singh, R/o Village- Poksari Thana- Batouli District- Ambikapur (Sarguja), C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Ambikapur (Sarguja) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 07.01.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the widow of the deceased under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Adhiniyam, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja 2 (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial No. 161/2023, whereby, the Respondent No.1-Mangeshwar Ram (wrongly mentioned as Mangeshwar Singh in the cause-title) has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.08.2023, a merg intimation was lodged by one Dudheshwar Nath before the Police Station Batouli, stating therein, that a dead body of deceased- Devi Singh is lying in his (Devi Singh) field as well as the field of one Rajeshwar Singh, and appears to have been killed with the aid of scarf. Based upon the said information, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered on 16.08.2023 at 12:00 hours against the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram in connection with Crime No.77/2023 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. Based upon the alleged information, dead body of the deceased- Devi Singh was recovered on 16.08.2023 and, inquest of the dead body was thereupon made vide Ex.P/4 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Umang Bothara (PW/10), who in turn, opined the cause of death is asphyxia which occurred due to compression in airway and venous congestion and accordingly, held to be homicidal in nature. The statement of Dudheshwar Nath, who lodged the merg intimation as well as the first information report, was recorded on 16.08.2023 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Disclosure statement of the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram was recorded vide (Ex.P/14) on 17.08.2023 and after recording the statement of prosecution witnesses 3 and after completion of the usual investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted its final report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur against the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC, and, the matter was thereafter committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja, where the charges have been framed against the said respondent under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 23 documents, while none was examined by the Respondent Mangeshwar Ram in his defence. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story, therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram is the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and being aggrieved with the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the widow of the deceased- Devi Singh. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that a merg intimation was lodged by one Dudheshwar Nath before the Police Station, Batouli, wherein, it has been stated by him that he has seen the dead body of the deceased- Devi Singh in his field as well as the field of one 4 Rajeshwar Singh. It appears further that based upon the said information, FIR was registered on 16.08.2023 at 12:00 hours against the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram. It, however, appears from perusal of the merg intimation that the name of Mangeshwar Ram was not disclosed by him, yet, the offence has been registered against the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram. It, however, appears that the name of Mangeshwar Ram has been mentioned in FIR because the name of him was disclosed by said Dudheshwar Nath, when his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Why the name of Mangeshwar Ram was not disclosed by said Dudheshwar Nath, was, however, not explained by him. That apart, it appears that the scarf, alleged to have been owned by Mangeshwar Ram, was used for commission of the alleged crime, but, the said scarf was, however, not found to be recovered from him (Mangeshwar Ram). It is to be seen further that although, it was stated by Dudheshwar Nath that the alleged scarf was owned by the Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram but, the said fact has, however, not supported by him, when he was examined before the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged scarf, alleged to have been used for commission of the alleged crime, was owned by Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram. Besides, perusal of the entire prosecution witnesses would, however, show that none have supported the prosecution story, even Sampat Singh (PW/8) and Nandlal (PW/9) in whose presence the alleged disclosure statement of said Mangeshwar Ram was recorded. Therefore, nothing was in fact, placed by the prosecution so as to hold that the Respondent- Mangeshwar 5 Ram was in any way involved in connection with the alleged crime, occurred on 15.08.2023. The Trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said Respondent- Mangeshwar Ram for commission of the alleged crime.
Decision
8. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan