[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chhin @ Pintu @ Pratham Yadav on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14290-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 742 of 2026
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed
... Petitioner(s)
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.03.27
11:44:28 +0530
versus
1 - Chhin @ Pintu @ Pratham Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 20
Years R/o Jaldhara Chowk, Basantpur, Thana Basantpur, Distt.-
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
2 - Nanu @ Kameshwar Yadav S/o Arjun Yadav Aged About 22 Years
R/o Jaldhara Chowk, Basantpur, Thana Basantpur, Distt.- Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
3 - Vikas Das Vaishnav @ Chinna S/o Late Ramnarayan Vaishnav Aged
About 21 Years R/o Chandra Colony (Rented, Name Of The Owner Of
The House- Dr. Sharma, Thana- Basantpur, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
4 - Sanjay Yadav @ Sanju S/o Late Shankar Yadav Aged About 22
Years R/o Rajiv Nagar, Ward No. 42, Basantpur, Thana Basantpur,
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
5 - Amit Nikose S/o Kailash Nikose Aged About 21 Years R/o Near
Firantin Mandir, Ward No. 42, Basantpur, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
6 - Aman Nikose S/o Kailash Nikose Aged About 20 Years R/o Near
Firantin Mandir, Ward No. 42, Basantpur, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
7 - Sahil Khobragadhe S/o Punamchand Khobragadhe Aged About 21
Years R/o Ward No. 42, Basantpur, Near Sharda Mandir, Thana-
Basantpur, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
2
8 - Avinash Sinde S/o Jhaman Sinde Aged About 24 Years R/o Near
Firantin Mandir, Ward No. 42, Basantpur, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.03.2026
1. I.A. No.01/2026 is an application for condonation of delay in filing
the petition. As another appeal has been filed by the complainant
bearing ACQA No. 8/2026 challenging the order of acquittal and the
same is within time and is admitted today for hearing, we deem it
appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present petition as well.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2026 stands allowed and the matter is
taken up for hearing.
3. By way of the present petition filed under Section 419(3) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), the
State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal
dated 30.08.2025 passed by the 1st Upper Sessions Judge, District-
Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 35/2021, whereby the
respondents/accused have been acquitted.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, in brief, on 24.09.2020,
complainant Pintu Markam, resident of Basantpur, District
Rajnandgaon, lodged a report stating that he runs a dance academy
named "D Action" and on the night of 23.09.2020, while present there,
he received a phone call at about 11:40 PM from his younger brother
Mahendra Markam alias Chintu informing him that their elder brother
Goldy Markam alias Yogendra Sahu had been brutally assaulted near
the fruit market by Raja Nikose and other co-accused persons, namely
Pankaj Yadav, Choti alias Vishnu Rajput, Khemchand Dewangan,
Chheen alias Pintu alias Pratham Yadav, Nanu alias Kameshwar Yadav
and others, by means of a tangia, knife and other weapons with an
intention to commit his murder. Upon receiving such information, the
complainant rushed to the spot and found his brother lying in a pool of
blood near the roadside drain with grievous injuries on his head and
shoulder, whereafter he was taken to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon,
but was declared dead by the doctors, while his friend Pratik Tamrakar,
who had attempted to intervene, was also found seriously injured and
admitted for treatment. On the basis of the said report, dehati nalishi
and merg intimation were recorded and thereafter FIR in Crime No.
330/2020 was registered at Police Station Basantpur under Sections
147, 148, 307, 307/149, 302 and 302/149 of IPC along with Sections 25
and 27 of the Arms Act, and after conducting inquest, preparing spot
map, recording statements of witnesses, obtaining post-mortem report
which opined the death to be homicidal due to severe injuries affecting
vital organs, and completing other formalities of investigation including
memorandum and seizure proceedings, charge-sheet was filed against
the accused persons. However, upon trial, despite examination of 16
prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated
30.08.2025 acquitted most of the accused persons by extending benefit
of doubt, while recording limited conviction only in respect of certain
offences under the Arms Act against some of the accused.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of
acquittal is wholly erroneous, unreasonable and contrary to the settled
principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials,
inasmuch as the learned trial Court has failed to correctly evaluate the
cogent and reliable evidence available on record against the
respondent/accused. It is contended that there exists sufficient ocular
as well as circumstantial evidence establishing the involvement of the
accused in the commission of the offence, which has been unjustifiably
discarded on the basis of minor, immaterial and trivial discrepancies.
The trial Court, it is urged, has ignored the consistent testimonies of
material prosecution witnesses including Prateek Tamrakar (PW-01),
Pintu Markam (PW-02), Smt. Minakshi Verma (PW-03), Dr. Anil
Mahakalkar (PW-04), Lalit Markam (PW-05), Lokesh Kumar Dewangan
(PW-06), Mahendra Kumar (PW-07), Girish Totwani (PW-08), Dr.
Runarayan Sahu (PW-09), Dinu Gore (PW-10), Dr. Nitin Barmate (PW-
11), Navluram Dhawde (PW-12), Kamlesh Kumar Sahare (PW-13),
Siddharth Prithyani (PW-14), Ruchi Verma (PW-15) and Yogesh Kumar
Patel (PW-16), which collectively establish the previous enmity and the
chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is
further submitted that the medical evidence, particularly the postmortem
report and the testimony of the doctors, unequivocally proves that the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, caused by injuries to
vital organs which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, and the same has remained uncontroverted.
6. It is further contended that the learned trial Court has failed to
draw the necessary adverse inference against the respondent/accused,
who, even in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them or their presence at the relevant
time and place of occurrence. The prosecution has duly established that
the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, acted in concert
and inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased with sharp-edged
weapons, and several blood-stained weapons were duly recovered
pursuant to their memorandum statements, which lends further
corroboration to the prosecution case. The documentary evidence
including FIR, dehati nalishi, merg intimation, inquest proceedings and
spot map also substantiate the prosecution story. It is thus submitted
that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are
based on conjectures and surmises and are liable to be set aside, as
the evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, warranting their conviction for the offence of
murder.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for grant of
leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 419(3)
of the BNSS is allowed.
8. Office is directed to register the case under the head of "Acquittal
Appeal".
9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed off accordingly.
10. The acquittal appeal is admitted.
11. Trial Court record have already been received and paper book
has already been prepared in CRA No. 2071/2025.
12. List the Acquittal Appeal on 20.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
