[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kalindar Ram on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15936-DB
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.09
10:23:32
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
CRMP No. 977 of 2026
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Manora Police Station
And District- Jashpur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Kalindar Ram S/o Bipta Ram Aged About 27 Years Caste- Korwa
R/o Village- Tiltangar Chowki Manora Police Station And District-
Jashpur (C.G.)
2 - Mahindar Ram S/o Bipta Ram Aged About 23 Years Caste- Korwa
R/o Village Tiltangar Chowki Manora Police Station And District-
Jashpur (C.G.)
3 - Dharmu Ram S/o Late Somra Ram Aged About 24 Years Caste-
Korwa R/o Village Tiltangar Chowki Manora Police Station And District-
Jashpur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy
Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
08.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government
Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application
for condonation of delay of 08 days in filing the instant petition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and
considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the
considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the
application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 08 days
in filing the instant petition is condoned.
3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2025 passed in Session Trial No.25 of
2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents/accused from the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 read with Section 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS") holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.12.2024, information
was received by the Kotwar, namely Prem Prakash Ram, from Village
Kanta, Police Outpost Manora, that an unidentified dead body was lying
in the water of Jisfari Dam and foul smell was emanating therefrom.
Upon such information, intimation was given to the police outpost, and a
merg intimation was recorded. During the preliminary inquiry, it was
revealed that on 14.12.2024, two villagers, namely Prakash and Kartik,
had gone to the said dam for grazing cattle. In the evening, while
attempting to give water to the cattle, they sensed a foul smell and upon
approaching the dam, noticed an unidentified dead body floating near
the edge of dam. They returned to the village, informed Sarpanch, who
along with them visited the spot and confirmed the presence of the dead
body. On the next day i.e., 15.12.2024, again upon inspection, it was
found that the dead body was lying in the water with stones tied around
the neck and waist by means of cloth, indicating that the deceased had
been murdered and the body had been disposed of in the dam to
conceal the offence. Accordingly, merg intimation was registered and
during inquiry, the offence under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS,
2023 was found to be made out, whereupon Dehati Nalishi was
recorded and investigation was taken up.
5. During investigation, the dead body was taken out from the water
and upon close inspection, injuries were found on the head, forehead,
jaw and ears, and the skin of the body was found peeled off. Stones tied
with cloth around the neck and waist were also noticed. The stones
were seized in presence of witnesses. Postmortem examination of the
dead body was conducted. As the identity of the deceased was initially
unknown, efforts were made through circulation of photographs and
information via WhatsApp in nearby villages. Subsequently, family
members from Village Tilitanger identified the deceased as Chudru
Ram, who had been missing for about 15 days. They also identified the
cloth (gamcha) used for tying the stones as belonging to accused
Kalinder and Dharmu. On the basis of suspicion, accused Kalinder
Ram, Mahinder Ram and Dharmu Ram were detained and interrogated,
wherein they disclosed their involvement in the commission of the
offence. Memorandum statements of the accused were recorded.
Pursuant to the memorandum of accused Kalinder Ram, a wooden stick
(sarei danda) used in the commission of offence was recovered from
the forest area of Jisfari and seized. Identification proceedings of the
seized articles were conducted in presence of witnesses. The seized
articles including the stick and clothes were sent for forensic
examination to FSL Ambikapur.
6. Upon completion of investigation, sufficient evidence was found
against the accused persons and they were arrested and charge-sheet
was filed under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur.
Since the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court and thereafter transferred for trial.
7. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused
persons under the aforesaid provisions. The accused abjured guilt and
claimed to be tried. Their statements were recorded, wherein they
denied the prosecution allegations.
8. In order to bring home the offences, the prosecution has
examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents.
9. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court
did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents/accused,
and therefore, acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence
charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2025, hence,
the present CrMP has been filed seeking leave to appeal.
10. Learned State counsel, assailing the impugned judgment of
acquittal, submits that though the scope of interference with an order of
acquittal is limited, yet the appellate Court possesses ample powers to
reappreciate and reanalyze the entire evidence available on record. It is
contended that if upon such reappraisal the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are found to be perverse, unreasonable or contrary to
the settled principles of law, the appellate Court would be well within its
jurisdiction to set aside the acquittal and record conviction. In the
present case, the impugned judgment is vitiated on account of
misappreciation of evidence and erroneous application of law. It is
further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the cogent and reliable circumstantial evidence adduced by
the prosecution, which clearly establishes the chain of circumstances
pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the respondents/accused. The
medical evidence, particularly the postmortem report proved by PW-09
Dr. Roshan Bariyar, unequivocally establishes that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature caused due to asphyxia resulting
from strangulation, and that the death had occurred approximately 10-
15 days prior to the autopsy. This vital piece of evidence has not been
given due weightage by the learned trial Court.
11. Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution has
successfully proved the incriminating circumstances including recovery
of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused, identification of
the articles by witnesses, and the conduct of the accused persons,
which form a complete chain leading to no other hypothesis except that
of guilt of the accused. Despite this, the learned trial Court has
unjustifiably discarded the prosecution evidence without assigning any
cogent reasons, thereby rendering the findings wholly perverse and
unsustainable in law. It is lastly contended that the learned trial Court
has adopted a hyper-technical approach and has acquitted the
respondents on flimsy and untenable grounds, ignoring settled
principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The
impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmities and
deserves to be set aside, and the respondents/accused are liable to be
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and
3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
12. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of
the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.
13. After appreciating the submissions advanced by both the parties
and upon marshalling the entire material available on record, the
learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused/respondents, has
elaborately held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has primarily observed that
though the death of the deceased Chudru Ram was homicidal in nature,
as duly proved by the medical evidence of PW-09 Dr. Roshan Bariyar,
who opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation,
however, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons
with the said crime through cogent and reliable evidence.
14. The learned trial Court has further recorded a finding that the case
of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is
no eyewitness to the occurrence. It has been held that the essential
chain of circumstances, which is required to be complete and consistent
only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, is not established in the
present case. The Court has taken note of the fact that key prosecution
witnesses, namely PW-02 Bhimram, PW-03 Sadhuram and PW-04
Chandrashekhar, have not supported the prosecution case and have
turned hostile, particularly on the aspect of identification of incriminating
articles such as the gamcha allegedly belonging to the accused
persons.
15. It has also been observed that the memorandum statements and
recovery of articles at the instance of the accused persons are not duly
corroborated by independent witnesses. The seizure of the alleged
weapon (sarei danda) has also been disbelieved inasmuch as the
forensic report did not detect presence of human blood on the said
article, thereby weakening the prosecution case. Furthermore, the trial
Court has noted that even the identification of clothes and other articles
allegedly recovered from the spot has not been proved in accordance
with law.
16. Upon cumulative consideration of the aforesaid deficiencies, the
learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the chain of circumstantial
evidence is incomplete and does not irresistibly point towards the guilt
of the accused persons. Giving benefit of doubt, the
accused/respondents have been acquitted of aforementioned charges.
17. In view of the aforesaid detailed findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, it is submitted that the conclusions arrived at are based on
proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles governing cases
based on circumstantial evidence. The findings cannot be said to be
perverse or wholly unreasonable so as to warrant interference. The
learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons for discarding the
prosecution evidence and for extending the benefit of doubt to the
accused persons.
18. Accordingly, this Court, upon reappraisal of the record, does not
find any substantial and compelling reason to grant leave to appeal
against the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal.
19. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in
an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is
found that the view taken by the Court is
impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to
interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally
if two views are possible, it is not permissible
to set aside an order of acquittal, merely
because the Appellate Court finds the way of
conviction to be more probable. The
interference would be warranted only if the
view taken is not possible at all."
20. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and in view of the detailed
discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave
to appeal against the judgment of acquittal does not disclose any
substantial or compelling ground warranting interference. The findings
recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of
evidence, and no perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been
demonstrated so as to persuade this Court to take a different view. It is
well settled that unless the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are
manifestly erroneous or wholly unsustainable, interference with an order
of acquittal is not warranted.
21. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to point out any
such infirmity in the impugned judgment which would justify reappraisal
of evidence leading to reversal of acquittal. The view taken by the
learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based on the
material available on record, and merely because another view is
possible, the same cannot be a ground to grant leave to appeal.
22. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to
appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
