[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rajesh Pahadi Korva on 20 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:13392-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 159 of 2019
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Lemru, District-
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Rajesh Pahadi Korva S/o Shri Ramdev Aged About 25 Years R/o
Devmud Mudkudvapara, Ramla, Police Station- Lakhanpur, District-
Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Baropahad, Police Station-
Lemru, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma along with Mr. Sahil
Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per Rajani Dubey, J.
20/03/2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the
judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.
14/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the
respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Sukhmati,
was residing with the accused at her matrimonial home situated in
village Devbhavadi. During this period, the accused, on account of
suspicion regarding the character of the deceased, used to
subject her to physical assault. Owing to such ill-treatment,
Sukhmati left her matrimonial home and started residing with her
parents at village Baropahar. Subsequently, the accused also
came and began residing at the house of the parents of the
deceased. The parents of Sukhmati questioned the accused
regarding his conduct of assaulting her; however, the accused did
not furnish any explanation and continued to harbour suspicion
regarding her character. The parents of the deceased advised and
restrained the accused from further ill-treatment.
On 02.12.2016, the deceased Sukhmati, along with
Saniyaro Bai and the accused Rajesh, went to the weekly market
at village Dokramna for the purpose of selling Charota seeds.
While returning to village Baropahar in the evening, the three
halted near a stream and lit a fire to warm themselves. After some
time, the accused and the deceased asked Saniyaro Bai to
remain near the fire while they proceeded to fetch their
belongings. They returned after approximately two to three hours.
Thereafter, the deceased expressed her intention to return home;
however, the accused insisted on staying there overnight. This led
to a quarrel between them. During the altercation, the deceased
caught hold of the accused's shirt, which got torn. Enraged, the
accused threw the deceased on the ground and assaulted her
with stones and a wooden stick. He further dragged her by her
leg, causing grievous injuries. Despite the deceased raising cries
for help and Saniyaro Bai attempting to intervene, the accused
continued the assault and ultimately caused the death of
Sukhmati by repeatedly striking her with stones and a stick.
Thereafter, the accused threatened Saniyaro Bai with dire
consequences, including death, if she disclosed the incident to
anyone. Due to fear, she remained silent and stayed near the
dead body during the night. On the following day, the accused
escorted Saniyaro Bai towards Baropahar and left her midway.
She returned home in the evening of 03.12.2016 and informed the
parents of the deceased about the incident. Upon receiving the
information, the father of the deceased, along with his wife
Chingibai and other villagers, proceeded to the spot and found the
dead body of Sukhmati lying with multiple injuries, including
severe head injuries with profuse bleeding. The matter was
reported at Police Station Lemru on the next day. On the basis of
the complaint lodged by Teejaram, a case was registered.
During the course of investigation, the police prepared the
inquest report and the dead body was sent to Primary Health
Centre, Lemru, for post-mortem examination. The Investigating
Officer prepared a spot map and seized incriminating articles from
the place of occurrence, including blood-stained soil, plain soil,
stones, broken glass bangles, a hair belt, bangles of the accused,
and currency notes. On 08.12.2016, the accused was interrogated
and his memorandum statement was recorded in the presence of
witnesses. Pursuant thereto, a wooden (tendu) stick and a full-
sleeved shirt stained with blood and hair were recovered at his
instance. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the seized
articles were sent for medical and forensic examination.
Upon completion of investigation and on the basis of the
post-mortem report and other collected evidence, a charge-sheet
was filed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Korba. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of
Sessions for trial and has been placed before the trial Court for
adjudication in accordance with law. The learned trial Court
framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, to which appellant
abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the
prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The statement of
the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded
innocence alleging false implication in the case. The
accused/respondent did not lead any evidence in defence.
5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the
charge under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment is based on erroneous assumptions, surmises and
conjectures and the evidence brought on record has not been
properly appreciated for the purpose of determining the guilt of the
respondent. The learned Trial Court has committed a grave error
both in facts and in law by disbelieving the cogent and reliable
testimony of the eye-witness, PW-2 Saniyaro Bai, without
assigning justifiable and convincing reasons. The learned Trial
Court has erroneously treated the post-mortem report as doubtful
and suspicious, despite there being no material contradiction or
infirmity in the medical evidence to warrant such a conclusion.
The learned Trial Court has misdirected itself in the appreciation
of evidence by improperly evaluating the testimony of the eye-
witness in the light of medical evidence. The learned Trial Court
has arrived at a wholly erroneous and unjustified conclusion
resulting in the acquittal of the respondent in a heinous offence of
murder, despite the eye-witness testimony remaining consistent,
credible and unshaken during cross-examination. The impugned
judgment is contrary to law and facts on record, suffers from
serious legal infirmities and is therefore unsustainable, warranting
interference by this Court.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused
submits that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based
on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned Trial Court has
rightly found inconsistencies in the prosecution case and
extended the benefit of doubt. The view taken is a plausible one
and does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
9. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that a
charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed
against the respondent/accused. Upon due appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record, the
learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused, holding that
the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
10. It is an undisputed fact before the learned Trial Court that the
deceased, Sukhmati, was the wife of the respondent/accused,
Rajesh and she died on 02.12.2016.
11. Dr. M.L. Bhariya (P.W.-8), who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased, stated that he had found multiple
injuries on the body and opined that the cause of death was shock
resulting from excessive bleeding. He further deposed that the
death was homicidal in nature and had submitted his report in this
regard vide Ex.P/25.
He denied the suggestion that the cranial injuries could have
been caused by a fall on a hard or heavy object. He clarified that,
in cases of a fall leading to a skull fracture, the injury would
ordinarily involve a larger area; however, in the present case, the
fracture was in the nature of a fissure, thereby ruling out the
possibility of such a fall.
12. Upon considering the testimony of Dr. M.L. Bhariya (P.W.-8) and
the post-mortem report (Ex.P/25), the learned trial Court rightly
concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
13. The prosecution has alleged that the accused assaulted his wife
with a stone and a club, as a result of which she sustained injuries
and ultimately succumbed to the same.
14. Teejram Pahadi Korva (P.W.-1), father of the deceased, stated
that on the date of the incident, the accused Rajesh, along with
Sukhmatiya and Shaniaro Bai, had gone to the market at Grag
Dhokargana. He deposed that after completing their shopping, all
three were returning home, and midway, Rajesh allegedly killed
Sukhmatiya. He further stated that this fact was informed to him
by Shaniaro Bai. He also stated that, thereafter, Dehati Nalisi was
registered vide Ex.P/1 and Dehati Merg Intimation vide Ex.P/2; the
spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/3, and the dead body
supurdnama was executed vide Ex.P/4, on all of which he affixed
his thumb impression.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that during the period
Rajesh and Sukhmatiya resided at his house, they lived
harmoniously. He further admitted that, to his knowledge, no
quarrel had ever taken place between them during that period.
Further in para 11, he stated that, " यह कहना सही है कि घटना की
रात सुखमतिया बहुत अधिक शराब पिये हुए थी और शनियारो बाई भी शराब के नशे
में थी। यह कहना सही है कि घटना की रात सुखमतिया और शनियारो बाई के मध्य
झगड़ा हुआ था। यह कहना सही है कि घटना की रात शनियारी बाई ने सुखमतिया
को पत्थर से मारा था। यह कहना सही है कि शनियारो बाई के पत्थर से मारने के
कारण ही सुखमतिया की मृत्यु हुई। पुनः कहता है कि सुखमतिया को राजेश ने पत्थर
से मारा था और उसी के कारण सुखमतिया की मृत्यु हुई।"
15. Shaniyaro Bai (P.W.-2) stated that she, along with Rajesh and
Sukhmatiya, had gone to the market at village Jokarmana during
the day to sell Barota seeds. She deposed that after selling the
Charota seeds at Dhokarangana market, all three of them were
returning to their village, Baropahad, at night. She further stated
that, on the way, a quarrel took place between Rajesh and
Sukhmatiya, during which the accused Rajesh assaulted
Sukhmatiya with a stick, causing her to fall down and die on the
spot. She also stated that thereafter she went to village Pahad
and on the following day, informed her father-in-law Teejram and
mother-in-law Digibai about the incident.
16. The prosecution, having declared the witness hostile, cross-
examined her, wherein she admitted that after assaulting
Sukhmatiya with a stick, the accused had also pelted stones at
her. She further admitted that Sukhmatiya died at the spot as a
result of the injuries inflicted by the accused. She also admitted
that she became frightened and fled from the place of occurrence
to village Pahar. However, she further stated that it was pitch dark
at the time of the incident and, due to such darkness, she could
not see anything clearly.
17. Dharam Singh (P.W.-4) admitted his signature on memorandum
(Ex.P/7), seizure memo (Ex.P/8) and arrest memo (Ex.P/9).
18. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not signed the
Memorandum Ex.P/7 after reading its contents and that he had
affixed his signature on Ex.P/7 at the insistence of the police.
19. It was observed that both the witnesses, namely Vijay Kumar
Agrawal (P.W.-5) and Rati Ram (P.W.-6), did not support the case
of the prosecution. They were accordingly declared hostile and
cross-examined by the prosecution; however, they denied the
suggestions put to them.
20. It was further noted that Rati Ram (P.W.-6) admitted only his
signatures on the seizure memos (Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12), while
denying all other suggestions made by the prosecution.
21. Upon a close scrutiny of the statements of all the witnesses, it
was found that, as per the prosecution case, the dead body was
discovered outside the house. It was further observed that the
only eye-witness, Shaniyaro Bai (P.W.-2) had stated that a quarrel
had taken place between the accused and the deceased;
however, she also admitted that due to darkness, she could not
see the incident clearly.
22. It was further recorded that the accused/respondent, in his
statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
in response to Question No. 79, stated as under:-
"प्रश्न 79 क्या, आप कु छ और कहना चाहते हो ?
उत्तर शनियारो बाई मुझसे एकतरफा प्रेम करती थी, मुझसे विवाह
करना चाहती थी। घटना दिनांक को भी शनियारो, सुखमतिया के साथ
बाजार गई थी, मैं नहीं गया था। दोनों शराब पिए हुए थे, संभवतः शराब के
नशे में सुखमतिया को चोट लगी और वह मर गई। इसका फायदा उठाने
के लिए शनियारो मुझे सुखमतिया के हत्या के मामले में फं साना चाहती है
क्योंकि मैं उसका विवाह का प्रस्ताव ठु करा दिया था।"
23. The learned trial Court, upon meticulous appreciation of the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, found that the
testimony of Shaniyaro Bai was unreliable and inconsistent with
the post-mortem report. It was further held that Shaniyaro Bai
could not be treated as an eye-witness to the incident. The Court
also observed that the other witnesses were not reliable and the
prosecution had failed to adduce any cogent, clinching and legally
admissible evidence against the respondent/accused.
Consequently, it was concluded that the prosecution had failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024
(Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors.
Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252,
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."
25. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon a
comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution
has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimony of the sole alleged eye-witness,
Shaniyaro Bai (P.W.-2) is found to be unreliable and inconsistent,
particularly in view of her admission regarding inability to see the
incident due to darkness, as well as contradictions with the
medical evidence. It is further observed that other material
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and were
declared hostile and no cogent, clinching and legally admissible
evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the charge
against the accused.
26. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mallappa (supra) the view taken by the learned trial Court is a
legally plausible view. Also, in an appeal against acquittal, where
two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the
accused must ordinarily be adopted. Interference is justified only
when the findings of the trial Court are shown to be perverse,
illegal or based on a manifest misappreciation of evidence.
Having regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal, we find no illegality or irregularity in the
conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court. No such infirmity
is demonstrated in the present case so as to warrant interference.
27. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at motion stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ruchi
RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV
