Rajnarayan @ Raju Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 759 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajnarayan @ Raju Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026

                                                             1




                                                                              2026:CGHC:13200
                                                                                             NAFR

                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                 CRMP No. 888 of 2019
                      Rajnarayan @ Raju Sahu S/o Shri Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 51 Years Jr/o
                      Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
                      (Accused), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                       ... Petitioner
                                                          versus
                      State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda
                      Bazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      ... Respondent

                      For Petitioner            : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate.
                      For Respondent/State      : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
         Digitally
         signed by

PREETI
         PREETI
         KUMARI                        Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
KUMARI   Date:
         2026.03.19

                                                      Order on Board
         17:54:53
         +0530


                      19.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Also heard Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for

respondent/State.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for

being aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the learned

First Additional Sessions Judge, Baolda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Revision

No. 28/2018, whereby the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the order

of the learned Trial Court in passed in Criminal Case No. 1007/2016 vide

order dated 24.04.2018.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the applicant was prosecuted under

Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2015 read with Section 201 of IPC in connection with Crime No.

158/2016 registered at Police Station Baloda Bazar. As per the

prosecution story, on 03.05.2016, the police patrolling party received

information regarding illegal Satta-Patti business being run by a juvenile

namely Mangesh Kumar. The police reached the spot and allegedly

recovered certain articles including plain paper with numbers, a pen,

Rs. 2,200/- and a mobile phone from the said juvenile. The juvenile was

arrested under Section 4(A) of the Gambling Act and being a minor, he

was sent to the Juvenile Care Home, Baloda Bazar. During investigation,

the police recorded the memorandum statement of the juvenile wherein

for the first time he named the present applicant and alleged that he was

acting under the instructions of the applicant. Solely, on the basis of the

said memorandum statement of the co-accused juvenile, the present

applicant was implicated and arrested in the same crime. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was

registered as Criminal Case No. 1007/2016 before the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. The learned trial Court after full-

fledged trial and appreciation of evidence, acquitted the applicant vide

judgment dated 24.04.2018. It is pertinent to mention that out of total 09

witnesses, 08 witnesses were examined, and all the independent

witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The

conviction was not recorded due to complete lack of evidence, however,

the learned trial Court instead of granting honourable acquittal, acquitted

the applicant merely on the ground of "benefit of doubt". Being aggrieved,

the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 28/2018 before the learned

First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, however, the revisional

Court vide order dated 23.03.2019 dismissed the revision and affirmed

the findings of the trial Court. The revisional Court failed to appreciate that

there was absolutely no incriminating evidence against the applicant and

the entire prosecution case was based solely on the memorandum

statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders

passed by the revisional Court are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the

settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is submitted that the entire

prosecution case against the applicant is based solely on the

memorandum statement of the co-accused juvenile, which has no

evidentiary value in the eyes of law unless corroborated by independent

evidence. It is further submitted that no recovery whatsoever has been

made from the present applicant and there is not even an iota of evidence

to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. All the independent

witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and have not

supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits

that the learned trial Court, despite recording a categorical finding

regarding absence of evidence, has erroneously acquitted the applicant

on the ground of benefit of doubt instead of granting honourable acquittal.

It is argued that where the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case,

such acquittal amounts to complete exoneration and the stigma of "benefit

of doubt" is unwarranted. It is also contended that the learned revisional

Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has

mechanically affirmed the findings of the trial Court without assigning

cogent reasons. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the

impugned orders passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the learned

trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and

has come to a just conclusion by granting benefit of doubt to the

applicant. It is further submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the

memorandum statement of the co-accused and the investigation

conducted by the police was proper and in accordance with law. The

Investigating Officer has supported the prosecution case and there is no

illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is

therefore prayed that the present petition being devoid of merits deserves

to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials

available on record.

7. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the

order/judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, it

transpires that out of a total of 09 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 08

witnesses were examined. The Investigating Officer has fully supported

the case of the prosecution and the actions taken during the course of

investigation. However, the independent witnesses have not supported

the prosecution case, though they have admitted their signatures on the

relevant documents. This indicates that the prosecution case was not

fabricated without any basis. Nevertheless, since the independent

witnesses did not support the prosecution version, the learned trial Court

extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused.

8. Considering the circumstances of the case, the benefit of doubt granted to

the accused appears to be justified. Furthermore, the revision petitioner is

not in government service, and therefore, there is no requirement to

classify the acquittal as an "honourable acquittal." In such circumstances,

the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in granting acquittal on

the basis of benefit of doubt is in accordance with law and does not

warrant any interference. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned

trial Court in its judgment dated 24.04.2018, whereby the accused was

acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, is hereby affirmed, and the

revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The Revisional Court

correctly dismissed the revision petition. No exceptional circumstances

exists to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be

dismissed.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and

from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court

as well as Revisional Court, I am of the view that both the

Sub-ordinates Courts have not committed any illegality or infirmity or

jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting

interference by this Court.

10. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of

merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary

compliance and follow up action, if any.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Preeti