[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sumitra Bai vs Chandraprakash @ Fadal Banjare on 13 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:12006-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 67 of 2017
1 - Smt. Sumitra Bai Wd/o Late Kunjram, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Jaropali, Police Station Sarsiva, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Chandraprakash @ Fadal Banjare, son of Dharmu Banjare,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva,
District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Pili Bai W/o Chandra Prakash Banjare Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva, District Baloda-
Bazar, Bhataapara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Sarsiva,
District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
And
ACQA No. 71 of 2017
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Sarsiwa, District Baloda-
Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
---Appellant
Versus
2
1 - Chandra Prakash @ Fadal Banjare, S/o Dharmu Banjare,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2 - Peelibai, W/o Chandra Prakash Banjare, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate in ACQA
No.67/2017 and Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu,
Dy. Govt. Advocate in ACQA No.71/2017
For Res. No.1 & : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
2/accused in both the
appeals.
For Respondent : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt.
No.3/State in ACQ Advocate.
No.67/2017
D.B. : Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
(Judgment on Board)
(13.03.2026)
Per Rajani Dubey, J
1. Since the aforesaid acquittal appeals arise out of the same
impugned judgment of acquittal, they are being heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The ACQA No. 67/2017 has been preferred by the
victim/appellant herein and ACQA No.71/2017 has been
preferred by State/appellant here against the judgment
dated 07.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.09/2015 by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar,
District Balodabazar (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court
acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein of
the charges punishable under Sections 302, 294, 506(Part-
II), and 326 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Kunjram Banjare
(since deceased) lodged a report on 16.12.2014 at about
11:10 A.M., to the effect that he worked as an agricultural
labourer. On 14.12.2014, after having his meal, he was
standing in the lane in front of his house at about 8:00 P.M.
At that time, his neighbour Chandra Prakash
(accused/respondent No.1) came there holding an iron axe
(tangiya) in his hand, and his wife Peelabai
(accused/respondent No.2) came carrying an iron rod
(sariya). Both of them started abusing him in filthy language
referring to his mother and sister and, on account of
previous enmity, threatened to kill him. Thereafter, Chandra
Prakash assaulted him with the iron axe and Peelabai struck
him with the iron rod on the left side of his head and near his
left eye, causing injuries from which blood started oozing
out. Due to the assault, he fell down on the ground while
raising alarm. Hearing his cries, his wife Sumitra Bai came
there, upon which accused/respondents Chandra Prakash
and Peelabai fled from the spot. Thereafter, his family
members took him to Narayana Hospital, Raipur for
treatment. However, due to shortage of money for
treatment, they brought him back home at about 3:00 A.M.
on 15.12.2014 and succumbed to the injuries in police
station. On the basis of the aforesai under Sections 294,
323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 d report, the concerned police
station registered a case against the accused persons under
Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 of the IPC.
4. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was
filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 302, 34 IPC before the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon
followed by charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 326,
302/34 of IPC by the learned Trial Court.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as
many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the
accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded
innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence,
one witness namely Dr. (Ku.) Sunanda Dhenge (DW-1) was
examined by the accused.
6. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the
respective parties and considering the material available on
record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the
accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charges under
Sections 302, 294, 506(Part-II), and 326 of IPC. Hence, this
acquittal appeal by the complainant/appellant and the State.
7. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the
complainant/appellant in ACQA No.67/2017 submits that the
judgment, findings and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court are illegal, improper and contrary to the
facts and evidence available on record and, therefore, the
same deserve to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. It is
further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to
properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. According to the learned counsel, looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence
available on record, the accused persons ought to have
been convicted for the offences for which charges were
framed against them. Learned counsel further submits that
the prosecution has clearly established that the
accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, in
furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder
of deceased Kunjram Banjare, assaulted him with a Tangia
and an iron rod. Due to the said assault, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries which ultimately resulted in his
death. It is contended that this fact was specifically stated by
the complainant/appellant before the trial Court during the
examination-in-chief. It is also argued that the testimony of
the complainant/appellant given in the examination-in-chief
has not been effectively rebutted by the accused/respondent
No.1 and respondent No.2 in their cross-examination.
According to the learned counsel, the prosecution witnesses
have clearly deposed against the respondents and their
statements establish the commission of the offences for
which the charges were framed. However, the defence
failed to discredit or rebut the material portions of their
testimonies.
8. Learned counsel also submits that the acquittal of the
accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 for the
offences charged is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the
evidence on record. It is contended that the learned trial
Court ought to have convicted the accused/respondents for
the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326,
506-B and 302 of the IPC. It is also submitted that the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the
course of investigation were not properly contradicted during
cross-examination by the accused/respondents, and
therefore the same lend support to the prosecution case.
Learned counsel further argues that during the investigation,
the police seized a blood-stained Tangia and a wooden stick
pursuant to the memorandum of the accused persons. The
seizure witnesses have supported the prosecution case
regarding such recovery. However, the learned trial Court
failed to properly appreciate this material evidence. Lastly, it
is submitted that the statements of the prosecution
witnesses are consistent with and corroborate the facts
mentioned in the FIR. All the witnesses have supported the
prosecution story, but despite the same, the learned trial
Court erroneously acquitted the accused persons. Thus, the
impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the
accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 be
convicted.
In support of his submission, learned counsel placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of Goverdhan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in (2025) 3 SCC 378.
9. Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
State/appellant in ACQA No.71/2017 submits that the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court
is illegal, improper and contrary to the evidence available on
record. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the injuries sustained by the deceased were
fatal in nature. The injuries were duly proved by the doctor
(PW-3), who clearly stated that the death of the deceased
was homicidal. Learned State counsel further submits that
the wife of the deceased (PW-10) is an eye-witness to the
occurrence. She has categorically deposed that upon
hearing abusive and filthy language uttered by the accused,
she came out of her house and saw that accused Peelibai
assaulted the deceased with an axe, while accused
Chandra Prakash was beating the deceased with a cudgel.
It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has
wrongly held that there was delay in lodging the FIR,
whereas the prosecution has duly explained the cause of
such delay. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court
in this regard is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
10. Learned State counsel also submits that the prosecution
has duly proved the memorandum statements and the
seizure made pursuant thereto, which form an important link
in the chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the
accused persons. It is further argued that the learned Trial
Court failed to consider that the deceased died after lodging
the FIR and, therefore, his statement ought to have been
treated as a dying declaration. In his complaint, the
deceased clearly stated that the accused persons had
assaulted him, and the said statement is duly corroborated
by other circumstantial evidence available on record.
Learned State counsel further submits that the learned Trial
Court wrongly disbelieved the statements of the eye-
witnesses and erroneously concluded that there was no
eye-witness to the incident. The impugned judgment,
therefore, suffers from serious infirmities. It is also
contended that the learned Trial Court has passed the
impugned judgment on the basis of conjectures and
surmises and has travelled beyond the evidence available
on record. The Court further failed to consider that
immediately after the incident, the complainant party
approached the police station to lodge the FIR, but on the
advice of the police they first took the injured to the hospital
for treatment in order to save his life. This aspect has been
completely ignored by the trial Court. Learned State counsel
also submits that the trial Court erred in observing that due
to previous enmity between the families of the deceased
and the accused, the accused might have been falsely
implicated, as such a finding is based merely on conjectures
and surmises. It is further submitted that the accused
persons failed to offer any explanation regarding the seizure
of the weapons used in the offence and how those articles
came into their possession. This material circumstance has
also been ignored by the learned trial Court.
11. According to the learned State counsel, the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is
sufficient evidence on record establishing the guilt of the
accused persons. The learned trial Court ought to have
relied upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and should
have convicted the respondents for the offences punishable
under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. So, the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for
accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals
supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal submits that
the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire
evidence available on record and has passed a well-
reasoned judgment. It is submitted that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers
from material contradictions and omissions, and the learned
trial Court has rightly found the testimony of the alleged eye-
witnesses to be unreliable. Learned counsel further submits
that the prosecution story is doubtful due to delay in lodging
the FIR and the existence of previous enmity between the
parties, which creates a strong possibility of false implication
of the accused persons. It is therefore contended that the
learned trial Court has committed no illegality or perversity
in acquitting the accused persons and the impugned
judgment does not call for any interference by this Court.
In support of his submission, learned counsel placed
reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and another Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2024) AIR(SC)
1678 : (2024) AIR (SC) Cri 548 : (2025) 2 CriCC 264 and
Mallappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(2024) AIR (SC) 1252 : (2024) AIR(SC) Cri 440.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
14. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that
the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294,
506 (Part-II), 326, 302/34 of IPC against the
accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 & after appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court
acquitted them of the charges under Sections 302, 294,
506(Part-II), and 326 of IPC on this ground that the
prosecution witnesses were not reliable and the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. Sumitra (PW-10), wife of deceased has stated that on the
date of incident at around 8.00 PM, when her deceased
husband came out of the house after having dinner and
went towards lane, the accused persons started hurling
abuses to him. After hearing the abuses, she came out of
the house and saw that accused Pili Bai was assaulting her
deceased husband by axe (tangia) on his head and accused
Chandra Prakash by club on his abdomen. She has also
stated that as she was not having courage to intervene, she
rant to call the members of her family from the house. By
the time they arrive, the accused persons had assaulted her
husband and fled from the spot. She has also stated that
after that, they went to Sarsiwa Police Station to lodge a
report. Her husband was taken along to the police station,
where police officials told them to take her deceased
husband for immediate medical treatment. Thereafter, they
took him to the Govt. Hospital at Sarsiwa, where her
deceased husband was referred to Raipur. In cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that on a report of
accused/respondents' daughter, a rape case was pending
against her nephew Vikesh. She has also admitted the
suggestion that a case of maarpeet was also pending
against her deceased husband Kunjram at Bilaigarh,
Bhatgaon. In para 13 of cross-examination, this witness has
stated that after occurrence of incident, they went to police
station Sarsiwa and lodged a report and police had recorded
her statement. This witness had denied this suggestion that
the report of the incident was lodged after 03 days of the
incident.
16. Dhanau Ram (PW-1) and Bodhmati (PW-2) are the
villagers. They have not supported the case of the
prosecution and prosecution declared them hostile & cross-
examined them but they denied all suggestions of the
prosecution.
17. Vikesh (PW-5), Chhatram (PW-6), Neera Bai (PW-7),
Damru Lal (PW-8), Ram Ratan (PW-9), relatives of
deceased Kunjram, have supported the statement of
Sumitra (PW-10), wife of deceased. All the witnesses have
stated that on the date of incident, both the accused
persons assaulted the deceased by tangia (axe) and rod.
After that, the deceased was taken to Sarsiwa Hospital from
where he was taken to Raipur, however, due to paucity of
fund, his treatment could not be done and they brought the
deceased back to home and after two days of incident, a
report was lodged at police station and after lodging the
report, deceased Kunjram died.
18. Vikesh (PW-5), in para 5 of his cross-examination, has
admitted this suggestion that on a report of daughter of
accused/respondents, a rape case was registered against
him. He has also admitted in para 8 that a case of maarpeet
was pending against him and his deceased uncle Kunjram.
This witness has denied this suggestion that his deceased
uncle Kunjram was not in a position to lodge a report and
some other person signed the report pretending to be his
deceased uncle Kunjram. This witness, in para 18 of his
cross-examination, has specifically admitted that his
deceased uncle passed away at 11.00 A.M, and the merg
intimation (Ex.P-3) was given after his death. As per the
merg intimation (Ex.P-3), the date and time of death of
deceased is 16.12.2014 at 11.30 AM and the time of lodging
the merg intimation (Ex.P-3) is 11.40 AM. Further, as per
FIR (Ex.P-16), the date of FIR is 16.12.2014 at 11.10 AM
and the date of incident is 14.12.2014 at 8.00 PM.
19. Dr. Narayan Sahu (PW-3) is the autopsy surgeon who
conducted autopsy of the deceased and gave his report
under Ex.P-1 noticing five injuries, out of which, injury No.1
was lacerated (stitched wound) on left fronto-parietal region
in the size of 8 x 2 cm. The autopsy surgeon opined the
cause of death of deceased to be cardio respiratory arrest
due to internal haemorrhage and peritonitis. In cross-
examination, the doctor has admitted that there was no
injury mark on the deceased caused by any sharp edged
weapon. The doctor has admitted that membrane covering
the liver and kidneys had no injuries. There were no injury
marks on the liver and kidneys.
20. G.K. Singh (PW-12) is the Assistant Sub Inspector. He
recorded the FIR (Ex.P-16) and admitted his signature on 'A
to A' part. This witness has also recorded merg intimation
(Ex.P-3) on the information of Vikesh (PW-5). In cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that he does not
know that how many times did complainant come for lodging
a report. He denied this suggestion that deceased Kunjram
had not come to police station for lodging a report. In para
16, a question was put to this witness that on what time did
he register the report and this witness answered to this
question that he recorded the report at 11.10 AM, deceased
died at 11.30 AM and merg was recorded at 11.40 AM. This
witness has admitted in para 19 that at the time of recording
a report, he was not having any medical report.
21. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it
appears that as per the FIR and other documents the
incident occurred on 14.12.2014 at about 8:00 PM, whereas
the FIR (Ex.P-16) came to be lodged only on 16.12.2014 at
11:10 AM, i.e., after a delay of about two days. Though the
prosecution has attempted to explain the delay by stating
that 'bZykt okLrs jk;iqj tkus ls', but no documentary evidence
such as medical papers, treatment records or MLC from
either Sarsiwa Hospital or Narayana Hospital, Raipur for the
intervening period from 14.12.2014 to 16.12.2014 has been
produced by the prosecution to substantiate this
explanation. Further, no treating doctor from the said
hospitals has been examined. The merg intimation (Ex.P-3)
was lodged on 16.12.2014 at 11:40 AM, shortly after the
death of the deceased, whereas the FIR was recorded only
twenty minutes prior to the death of the deceased. In the
absence of any supporting medical document to show that
the deceased was under continuous treatment during the
intervening period, the explanation for the delay in lodging
the FIR remains unsubstantiated and creates a serious
doubt regarding the prosecution version.
22. In addition to the above infirmities, the defence examined
Dr. Ku. Sunanda Dhenge (DW-1), a handwriting expert, who
after examining the signatures of the deceased Kunjram and
the signature appearing on the FIR submitted her report
(Ex.D-4) opining that the signature on the FIR does not tally
with the signatures of the deceased on other documents
relating to Criminal Case No. J-29/2014. Furthermore, the
FSL report does not indicate the presence of human blood
on the seized weapons allegedly used in the offence.
Significantly, the prosecution has also failed to produce any
medical document or MLC prepared immediately after the
incident to establish the nature of injuries sustained by the
deceased on 14.12.2014, nor has the medical history from
Narayana Hospital, Raipur been brought on record. In such
circumstances, the prosecution evidence suffers from
material omissions and inconsistencies which create serious
doubt regarding the manner of occurrence and the
involvement of the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution
has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that
on 14.12.2014 both the accused persons assaulted
deceased Kunjram due to which he died on 16.12.2014.
23. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has
meticulously evaluated the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, the defence evidence, and the documentary
material available on record. The Trial Court has rightly
taken note of the material contradictions in the prosecution
case, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence
of medical documents relating to treatment of the deceased
immediately after the alleged incident, the hostile nature of
independent witnesses, the negative FSL report, and the
expert opinion regarding discrepancy in the signature of the
deceased on the FIR. In view of these circumstances, the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt.
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu (supra) held in para 19, 20 and
21 as under :-
"19. At the cost of repetition, we are compelled
to say that the findings of the High Court are
totally based on conjectures and surmises.
Though the High Court has referred to the law
laid down by this Court with regard to the scope
of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the
High Court has totally misapplied the same and a
very well-reasoned judgment based upon the
correct appreciation of evidence by the trial Court
has been reversed by the High Court, only on the
basis of conjectures and surmises.
20. The High Court could have interfered in the
criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion
that the findings of the trial Judge were either
perverse or impossible. As already discussed
hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could
be found in the approach adopted by the learned
trial Judge.
21. In any case, even if two views are possible
and the trial Judge found the other view to be
more probable, an interference would not have
been warranted by the High Court, unless the
view taken by the learned trial Judge was a
perverse or impossible view."
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated
12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the
matter 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 must 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."
26. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial
pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Ballu (supra) Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the
learned Appellate Court in acquitting the
accused/respondents of the charge under Sections 302,
294, 506(Part-II) and 326 of IPC, this Court finds no illegality
in the order impugned acquitting the respondent 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.
27. Accordingly, both the acquittal appeals are bereft of any
substance and, therefore, the same are liable to be and are
hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
pekde
