Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Tasil Ram on 9 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:21644-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 150 of 2018
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Bagicha
District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Tasil Ram S/o Natwa Ram, Aged 30 Years R/o Kurdeg (Kadampara),
Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Saniyaro Bai W/o Late Shivlal Ram, Aged 32 Years, R/o Kurdeg
(Kadampara), Police Station Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : None, though served.
For Respondent No.2 : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate appears
on behalf of Shri Varunendra Mishra,
Advocate.
D.B:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
09/05/2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning
NARESH KUMAR
by NARESH
KUMAR Date:
KAMDE
the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31/08/2017 passed
KAMDE 2025.05.09
18:37:01 +0530
by the learned Session Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No.14/2017, whereby, the respondents have been
acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on
18/11/2015 at 19.30 hours, a merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was lodged by
one Surendra Bhagat, the uncle of the deceased-Shivlal, before the
Police Station Bagicha stated therein that on 16/11/2015 at 8.00
P.M., the deceased has left the house without intimating anyone, but
did not return, therefore, they started searching of him and the dead
body of him was ultimately found into the well on 18/11/2015. Based
upon the alleged information, an inquiry was conducted and, an FIR
(Ex.P/20) was registered on 24/11/2015 against an unknown person.
Inquest of the dead body of deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/4
and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. C.D. Bakhla
(PW-10), who vide his report (Ex.P/5), opined the cause of death
has occurred due to asphyxia on account of throttling and,
accordingly, it was opined to be homicidal in nature and after
completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha against
the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and, the matter was
thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge
has been framed against them under the offence mentioned herein-
above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the
prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and has
exhibited 21 documents, while none was examined by the
respondents in their defence.
4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the
prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not
involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, they
have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and being
aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits
that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not
the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the
materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the
prosecution, particularly the statement of the father of the
deceased-Shivlal, has not been scanned in its proper manner and,
thereby erred in acquitting the respondents as such.
6. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 despite
service of notice.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 has supported the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial
Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the entire record carefully.
9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased-
Shivlal had left the house on 16/11/2015 at 8.00 P.M. without
intimating any members of his family and when he did not return, a
search was made and during the search, the dead body of him was
recovered from the well on 18/11/2015. It appears further that the
statement (Ex.P/15) of one Abhay Kumar was recorded under
Section 164 of CrPC, where it was stated by him that when he was
taking drink along with others, the respondent No.1-Tasil came and
told that he along with the respondent No.2-Saniyaro Bai, who is the
wife of the deceased, have murdered the deceased and have
thrown his body into the well. But when he was examined before the
Court he has, however, failed to state as such. Insofar as the
statement of the father of the deceased, namely, Bhagwa (PW-5) is
concerned, it shows that the deceased had left the house along with
the respondent No.1 on the fateful day at 7.00 P.M., but did not
return and, therefore, he has raised a doubt that his son was
murdered by the respondent No.1-Tasil. Although, it was stated by
him as such, but his statement was, however, not found to be
corroborated by others. That apart, the deceased, who had left the
house and had gone with him as per the statement of deceased's
further, but as per the PM report (Ex.P/5), he was found to be dead
in the morning around 7.00 A.M. on 18/11/2015, however, none of
the prosecution witnesses have stated that during these 36 hours,
he was seen with the deceased. Therefore, it can not be said that he
was with the deceased or he could have held liable, as alleged by
the deceased's father.
10. In view of such circumstances and, in absence of any cogent
and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that
the respondents are involved in any manner with regard to alleged
offence and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any
illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the
alleged crime.
11. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
Kamde
