[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sastu Ram on 7 April, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026.04.07
17:05:01
+0530
ACQA No. 8 of 2021
Judgment Reserved on 24.03.2026
Judgment Delivered on 07.04.2026
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Batouli, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant
versus
1. Sastu Ram, S/o Rijhan Ram Uraon, aged about 22 Years,
2. Rijhan Ram Uraon, S/o Tejram Uraon, aged about 45 Years,
3. Smt. Rimjo, W/o Rijhan Ram, aged about 40 Years,
All are R/o village Mahila (Tongripara), Police Station Batouli, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Sitapati, W/o Shobhit Lohar, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village
Saraswatipur (Dhamnadand), Police Station Batouli, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
CAV Judgment
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Heard on admission.
1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/State arises out of the
judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.
231/2013, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been
acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 314 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.02.2013, at about 7:30
a.m., PW-6 Basant, father of the deceased, lodged a merg intimation
(Ex.P-10), stating that the deceased had developed a love relationship
with respondent No.1- Sastu Ram and, as a result of such relationship,
she had conceived. It is further the case of the prosecution that
respondent No.1, with the assistance of respondent No.2- Rijhan Ram
Uraon and respondent No.3- Rimjo, took the deceased to respondent
No.4 Sitapati, a resident of village Saraswatipur (Dhamnadand), where
her pregnancy was allegedly terminated by pressing her abdomen and
administering some herbal medicine. It is alleged that due to this, her
condition deteriorated and she ultimately died during treatment at Holy
Cross Hospital, Ambikapur on 06.02.2013. On the basis of the merg
intimation (Ex.P-10), FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the accused
persons.
3. During investigation, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-9
and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem
examination. PW-4 Dr. Ganesh Beck conducted the postmortem and
opined that the cause of death was cardiac arrest consequent to
septicemia, leading to failure of vital organs and gave postmortem
report (Ex.P-6). The accused persons were taken into custody vide
Exs.P-18 to P-21 and statements of the witnesses were recorded.
4. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against
the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The
accused persons/respondents denied the charges and claimed to be
tried.
5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating
the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the
accused persons/respondents of the charge leveled against them.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial
Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons
despite there being sufficient oral as well as medical evidence available
on record. It is contended that the statements of the parents and
brother of the deceased clearly establish that deceased was pregnant
by accused- Sastu Ram and that he, along with the other co-accused
persons, had taken her for the purpose of abortion, which ultimately
resulted in her death. It is further submitted that the medical evidence
corroborates the prosecution case regarding abortion and the
subsequent septicemia leading to death. Therefore, it is argued that the
impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set
aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned
judgment and submits that there is no direct evidence to show that the
accused persons had taken the deceased to the house of co-accused -
Sitapati or that any abortion was carried out by her. It is further
submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on hearsay
evidence and suffers from material contradictions and omissions.
Therefore, the learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the
evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused persons, which
calls for no interference by this Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State
of Kerala1 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against
acquittal, which reads as under:-
"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by
invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to
consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a
possible one, particularly when evidence on record has
been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal
adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively
slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the
accused does not get weakened but only strengthened.
Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the
accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on
the accepted legal parameters."
10. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court
was justified in acquitting the accused persons of the aforesaid
offences.
11. From the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Ganesh Beck, who conducted the
postmortem examination of deceased and proved the PM report
(Ex.P/6), it is clear that the deceased died due to septicemia leading to
failure of vital organs. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that
no definite signs of abortion or premature delivery were found. Thus, the
medical evidence shows the cause of death, but does not clearly prove
that any abortion was carried out or connect the accused persons with
the alleged act.
12. This apart, PW-3 Maheshwari (mother of the deceased), PW-6 Basant
(father of the deceased) and PW-1 Anil Tirkey (brother of the deceased)
have stated about the relationship between the deceased and
1 (2022) 8 SCC 440
accused/respondent No.1- Sastu Ram and have deposed that the
deceased had become pregnant. However, their statements regarding
the alleged act of abortion are not based on direct knowledge. PW-3
Maheshwari admitted in her cross-examination that she did not
personally see the accused persons taking the deceased to any place
for abortion. Similarly, PW-6 Basant also admitted that he had no direct
knowledge about the place or manner in which the alleged abortion was
carried out. Likewise, PW-1 Anil Tirkey has also not witnessed the
incident and his testimony is based on what he came to know from
others. Thus, their evidence on the crucial aspect of abortion is hearsay
in nature and does not inspire confidence.
13. It is also significant to note that the prosecution witnesses have
admitted that, prior to being taken to Mission Hospital, the deceased
had been treated by a local practitioner at village Ghoghra. This fact
introduces a possibility that the condition of the deceased might have
deteriorated due to such treatment. However, no proper investigation
has been carried out in this regard and the said practitioner has not
been examined as a witness. Further, no independent witness from
village Saraswatipur (Dhamnadand), where the alleged abortion is
stated to have been carried out by respondent No.4 Sitapati, has been
examined by the prosecution. No material object, instrument or
substance allegedly used for the purpose of abortion has been seized or
produced before the Court. There is also no evidence to show that
respondent No.4-Sitapati was engaged in performing such illegal acts.
Moreover, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the
death was a direct consequence of any illegal abortion conducted by the
respondents. This lack of corroborative evidence creates serious doubt
regarding the prosecution case.
14. Thus, from the overall appreciation of the evidence, it emerges that
although deceased died due to septicemia, but the prosecution has
failed to establish that the accused persons/respondents had taken her
for the purpose of illegal abortion or that such abortion was carried out
by any of the accused persons. The evidence on record is not sufficient
to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly
towards the guilt of the accused persons. If the case of the prosecution
is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the prosecution
was made on the basis of mere suspicion, but, suspicion, however
grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The learned trial Court,
after an elaborate discussion and proper appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, has concluded that the prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents, in furtherance
of common intention, caused miscarriage resulting in death of the
deceased and accordingly, acquitted them of the charge leveled against
them.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus
State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All
the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal
law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The
principles which come into play while deciding an appeal
from acquittal could be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result
in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of
challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that
two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused
shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal
in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for
acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity
or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra),
the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable
view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court finds
no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed
by the learned trial Court.
17. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the
acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed at the
admission stage.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh
