Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mahanguram Baghel on 17 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 244 of 2022
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Chowki Belgahana,
Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
1. Mahanguram Baghel, S/o Shri Malikram Baghel, aged
about 40 years.
2. Rajkumar Baghel, S/o Shri Malikram Baghel, aged about
24 years.
3. Malikram Baghel, S/o Shri Maikuram Baghel, aged about
70 years.
4. Smt. Rekha Baghel, W/o Shri Mahanguram Baghel, aged
about 36 years.
5. Urmila Baghel, S/o Shri Malikram Baghel, aged about 65
years.
All R/o village Karhikachar, Fatakpara, Belgahana,
Chowki - Belgahana, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner/State : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, P.L.
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
17/02/2022
1. Heard on prayer for grant of leave to appeal.
2. The present petition has been filed by the State seeking
leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and
order dated 08.10.2021 passed by 5 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in
Sessions Trial No.104/2019 acquitting the
accused/respondents for the offence punishable under
Section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2019 at about
16.30, a merg intimation was lodged by Complainant
Deepak Kumar Sahu with the averments that his son
deceased Nitin @ Raja Sahu left the house on
19.02.2019 and did not return. On extensive search by
the neighbour, deceased Nitin @ Raja Sahu was found
hanging on a blueberry tree. During merg inquiry, it was
revealed that the deceased was in love with Ku. Anjana
Baghel, daughter of accused/respondent No.1 herein,
and accused/respondents were threatening the
deceased to kill or to implicate him in false case if he
does not marry with Anjana Baghel (PW/8) and due to
the harassment of the respondents/accused persons,
deceased Nitin committed suicide by hanging on a tree.
On the basis of which, FIR bearing Crime No.197/2019
was registered under Sections 306, 34 IPC against the
respondents/accused. After filing of the charge sheet,
the trial Judge framed the charges against
accused/respondents under Section 306 read with
section 34 IPC.
4. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the
prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statement of
the accused/respondents were also recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the
circumstances appearing against them in the
prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false
implication.
5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material available on record
has acquitted the accused/respondents as mentioned in
para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court
has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondents
even when there is ample evidence against them. He
also submits that the prosecution has proved its case by
reliable witnesses.
7. Heard learned State counsel and perused the material
available on record.
8. From the evidence of Deepak Sahu (PW/1), father of
deceased, neighbour Tiharin Bai (PW/2), Meena Sahu
(PW/5), mother of deceased, Madhu Sahu (PW/7), sister
of deceased and Anjana Baghel (PW/8), daughter of
accused/respondent No.1, it is clear that the deceased
and Anjana Baghel, daughter of accused/respondent
No.1 was having love affair each other and the
accused/respondents were forcing the deceased to
marry their daughter. The trial Court, in para 32, has
recorded its finding that though there is unrebutted
evidence on record with regard to suicide by the
deceased himself, but there was every possibility to get
rid of the stress because the deceased was having
option to get marry with Anjana (PW/8). That apart, Dr.
D.P. Dhruv (PW/11) who conducted autopsy on the body
of deceased gave his report Ex.P/18 opining the cause of
death of deceased to be suicidal.
9. Considering the statements of Deepak Sahu (PW/1),
father of deceased, neighbour Tiharin Bai (PW/2), Meena
Sahu (PW/5), mother of deceased, Madhu Sahu (PW/7),
sister of deceased, Anjana Baghel (PW/8), daughter of
accused/respondent No.1 and Dr. D.P. Dhruv (PW/11),
the trial court has come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the
shadow of doubt and thus acquitted the
accused/respondents of the charges levelled against
them. The learned Court below has meticulously
examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
recorded its finding of acquittal. I find no illegality in the
order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly
when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis
of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one
favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even
otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in
proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial
Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of
acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of
evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of
appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited
and interference can only be made if finding recorded by
the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring
the relevant material and considering the irrelevant
ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there
warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the CRMP preferred by the State/applicant is
bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission
stage itself leading to refusal of leave to appeal as
sought for by the State.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
pekde
