Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sarvan Nut on 28 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1205 of 2021
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer,
Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Sarvan Nut S/o Shri Nandu Nut, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Thakurikanpa, Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2. Dharmendra Nut, S/o Shri Ramesh Nut, Aged About 20 Years
R/o Thakurikanpa, Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner/State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, GA
For Respondents : None present.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K.Agrawal &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board By Smt. Rajani Dubey, J.
28/04/2022
1. Heard on the prayer for grant of leave to appeal under Section
378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned counsel for the State/petitioner submits that though the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but the trial
court has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections
302/34 and 201 IPC. He further submits that the doctor (Dr.Praveen
Prateek Pradhan PW-8) who has conducted the postmortem
examination on the body of the deceased Rinku Nut has opined that
the death was homicidal in nature but the learned trial court without
appreciating the evidence on record, has acquitted the
respondents/accused.
3. Heard counsel for the State/petitioner and perused the material
on record.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.09.2018, complainant Rinki
Nut (PW-1) lodged a report at police station Sakri, district Bilaspur
alleging that on 24.09.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., respondent
No.2/accused Dharmendra Nut came to her house and took her
husband along with him on walk and at about 9.30 pm, respondent
No.2 returned alone and her husband did not return. When she asked
about her husband, he stated that they came by the motorcycle to
Takhatpur and her husband got down at Thakurikanpa, boarded the
bus to Bilaspur and he is not aware about the whereabouts of her
husband. Missing report was registered at Police Station Sakri vide
Missing Report No. 67/2018 and during investigation, at about 11.00
p.m. Kotwar Kamleshwar (PW-7) informed that dead body of her
husband Rinku was found buried near the canal at Barela Khar. Merg
intimation Ex.P-19 was prepared and wife of the deceased was
informed. Thereafter FIR was lodged and after investigation, charge
sheet was filed against the respondents/accused and charges were
framed under Sections 302 /34 and 201 IPC.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as
many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondents were
also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.c. in which they denied the
charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false
implication in the case. This apart, one defence witness have been
examined by the respondents/accused.
6. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the
learned trial court found that the chain of circumstances have not been
proved. Furthermore, we find that the trial court has found the case of
the prosecution not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the
respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. Hence the
present petition filed by the State/petitioner.
7. After going through the impugned judgment of acquittal and the
oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, we find that
though the prosecution has succeeded in proving the death of the
deceased as homicidal in nature but the chain of circumstances have
not been proved against the respondents. The wife of the deceased
has also admitted in her cross-examination that she lodged the report
after two days when the dead body of her husband was found. She has
also amditted that " esjs ifr dk vkjksihx.k ls ckrphr canFkk muds e/;
eueqVko Fkk bl dkj.k 'kadk ds vk/kkj ij vkjksihx.k ds fo#} fjiksVZ ntZ
djk;h FkhA"
8. Learned trial court has also found that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt looking to the evidence of
the witnesses and has rightly come to a conclusion of acquitting the
respondents/accused. Thus, it is a settled principle that while
exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, then the Court
shall not disturb the findings of the acquittal. Thus, this Court is of the
view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused
of the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC is just and proper
and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the leave as
sought for by the petitioner for registration of appeal against the
judgment of acquittal is hereby refused and the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K.Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
suguna
