Chattisgarh High Court
Rajnarayan @ Raju Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13200
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 888 of 2019
Rajnarayan @ Raju Sahu S/o Shri Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 51 Years Jr/o
Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
(Accused), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda
Bazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI
KUMARI Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
KUMARI Date:
2026.03.19
Order on Board
17:54:53
+0530
19.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent/State.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baolda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 28/2018, whereby the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the order of the learned Trial Court in passed in Criminal Case No. 1007/2016 vide order dated 24.04.2018.
3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the applicant was prosecuted under 2 Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 201 of IPC in connection with Crime No. 158/2016 registered at Police Station Baloda Bazar. As per the prosecution story, on 03.05.2016, the police patrolling party received information regarding illegal Satta-Patti business being run by a juvenile namely Mangesh Kumar. The police reached the spot and allegedly recovered certain articles including plain paper with numbers, a pen, Rs. 2,200/- and a mobile phone from the said juvenile. The juvenile was arrested under Section 4(A) of the Gambling Act and being a minor, he was sent to the Juvenile Care Home, Baloda Bazar. During investigation, the police recorded the memorandum statement of the juvenile wherein for the first time he named the present applicant and alleged that he was acting under the instructions of the applicant. Solely, on the basis of the said memorandum statement of the co-accused juvenile, the present applicant was implicated and arrested in the same crime. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1007/2016 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. The learned trial Court after full- fledged trial and appreciation of evidence, acquitted the applicant vide judgment dated 24.04.2018. It is pertinent to mention that out of total 09 witnesses, 08 witnesses were examined, and all the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The conviction was not recorded due to complete lack of evidence, however, the learned trial Court instead of granting honourable acquittal, acquitted the applicant merely on the ground of "benefit of doubt". Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 28/2018 before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, however, the revisional Court vide order dated 23.03.2019 dismissed the revision and affirmed 3 the findings of the trial Court. The revisional Court failed to appreciate that there was absolutely no incriminating evidence against the applicant and the entire prosecution case was based solely on the memorandum statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders passed by the revisional Court are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case against the applicant is based solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused juvenile, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law unless corroborated by independent evidence. It is further submitted that no recovery whatsoever has been made from the present applicant and there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. All the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court, despite recording a categorical finding regarding absence of evidence, has erroneously acquitted the applicant on the ground of benefit of doubt instead of granting honourable acquittal. It is argued that where the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case, such acquittal amounts to complete exoneration and the stigma of "benefit of doubt" is unwarranted. It is also contended that the learned revisional Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has mechanically affirmed the findings of the trial Court without assigning cogent reasons. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the learned 4 trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has come to a just conclusion by granting benefit of doubt to the applicant. It is further submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the memorandum statement of the co-accused and the investigation conducted by the police was proper and in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer has supported the prosecution case and there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is therefore prayed that the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order/judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, it transpires that out of a total of 09 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 08 witnesses were examined. The Investigating Officer has fully supported the case of the prosecution and the actions taken during the course of investigation. However, the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, though they have admitted their signatures on the relevant documents. This indicates that the prosecution case was not fabricated without any basis. Nevertheless, since the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version, the learned trial Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused.
8. Considering the circumstances of the case, the benefit of doubt granted to the accused appears to be justified. Furthermore, the revision petitioner is not in government service, and therefore, there is no requirement to classify the acquittal as an "honourable acquittal." In such circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in granting acquittal on 5 the basis of benefit of doubt is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 24.04.2018, whereby the accused was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, is hereby affirmed, and the revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The Revisional Court correctly dismissed the revision petition. No exceptional circumstances exists to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, I am of the view that both the Sub-ordinates Courts have not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti