The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards.

Judgment :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G. in Sessions Case No. 16/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) on the basis of benefit of doubt.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.12.2016, at around 12:00 p.m., one Hazari Gond reached his agricultural field situated at Village Dhuanchapar Khar to harvest sesame crops, where he noticed the dead body of an unknown male, aged about 40 years, lying in the adjoining field of one Veer Singh. The dead body was found bleeding from the mouth and a green-colored scarf, tied with two knots, was found around the neck. Thereafter, Hazari Gond immediately informed the villagers and subsequently, they went to Police Station Taregaon Forest, District Kabirdham, where a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was recorded. During the inquest proceedings, the dead body was identified as that of Anujram Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by PW-2 Visram Patel and one Raju Patel. The dead body was then sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Devendra Belchandan. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P-19), the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the nature of death was homicidal. During investigation, blood-stained soil, plain soil, a black cloth from the deceased’s pant pocket, a purse containing slips with mobile numbers and a pair of slippers were seized vide Ex. P-5. Based on statements recorded during the enquiry, suspicion arose that the deceased’s wife- Kaushalya Bai, was having an illicit relationship with accused/respondent No.1- Nandram Shrivas. It was revealed that on 07.12.2016, PW-8 Salikram and PW-9 Punitram had seen the accused persons allegedly taking the deceased- Anujram, on a motorcycle and later murdering him. On the basis of the evidence collected during enquiry, a First Information Report (Ex.P-22) was registered against the accused persons/respondents. The accused persons were taken into custody as per Exs.P-25 and P-26. Vide Ex.P-10, the memorandum statement of accused- Jugut Ram was recorded, pursuant to which, an old mobile phone of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P-11. Vide Ex. P-12, a Hero Honda CD-Dawn motorcycle bearing registration number CG-10-DB-8293 was seized from the house of accused- Nandram. Vide Ex. P-17, a green towel (scarf) was also seized. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and the FSL report (Ex.P-29) was found to be inconclusive.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents as there is ample evidence available on record to connect them with the offences in question. He would further submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He would further submit that from th