HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, C.J., Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
State of Chhattisgarh - Appellant
Versus
Deepak Phabyani S/o Shri Dalit Ram - Respondent
ACQA No. 456 of 2010
Decided On : 09-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed by state against acquittal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detailed prosecution story presented. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments from prosecution and defense. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's review of evidential appreciation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. legal standards for appeals against acquittal. (Para 8) |
| 6. determination of homicidal death. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. circumstantial evidence analyzed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. lack of substantive proof in prosecution's claims. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. confirmation of trial court's acquittal and delays in appeal. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
1. As during pendency of present Acquittal Appeal filed by the State, accused/respondent Nos. 4 Bhuneshwar Sahu No. 5 Jiyant Walyani and No.6 Phaiju Mohammad @ Phiju have been died and their names have already been deleted and as such, the present appeal is being considered only for accused/ respondent Nos.1 Deepak Phabyani, No.2 Upendra Surojiya, No.3 Vijay Kumar Soni, No.7 Manoj Sahu and No.8 Liyakat @ Likku.
2. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the State/appellant challenging the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.69/1998, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, R/w Section 302, 404 R/w Section 34 and 201 of IPC giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The prosecution story is not described in the charge sheet in the required detail. Based on the police statements and other documents filed with the case, the prosecution story, as detailed as possible, is as follows:
(1) The deceased, Parameshwar Rao had been working as a Munim in the shop named Laxmi Traders, a wholesale grocery store in Jagdalpur owned by witness Trinath Rao (PW-19), for about 2-3 years prior to October 1997. In order to recover the price of goods sold on credit by the firm, the deceased frequently used to go to Kanker, Bhanupratappur, Dhamtari, Bilaspur, and Raipur, collect the money, bring it to Jagdalpur, and deposit it with the firm.
(2) Deceased Parameshwar Rao, during his visit from 06.10.1997 to 08.10.1997, collected from various shopkeepers in Raipur, Bilaspur, and Dhamtari, a total of Rs.1,07,696/- payable to Trinath's Laxmi Traders, Jagdalpur, for goods sold on credit, and a draft of Rs.15,300/- from the firm of Lilaram Danumal of Raipur. He kept all this money and draft in his briefcase and returned to Kanker on 08.10.1997 and stayed at the Mother India Lodge of accused Jiyant Walyani. For security reasons, he kept the money and draft in a briefcase and got the briefcase kept at the shop of accused Deepak, Vinod Traders and on the same night informed his partner Trinath over phone that he was staying at Mother India Lodge, Kanker, after collecting Rs. 1,06,000/- in cash and a draft of Rs.15300/- and on 09.10.1997 he would go to Bhanupratappur, collect the remaining amount and return to Jagdalpur the same night.
(3) On the night of 08.10.1997 at 9-10 pm, accused Deepak, Faizu, Likku alias Liaqat, Rinku, absconded accused Ajay, Vijay, Manoj took the deceased from Mother India Lodge to the hill behind RES Colony. There they killed him by hitting him with a stick or a knife and strangulating him. They also burnt his body by pouring petrol on it. After this all the accused returned to their homes. On 09.10.1997 accused Deepak took out Rs. 1,06,000/- from the briefcase of the deceased kept at his house and all this money was divided among all the above accused. The empty briefcase, papers, clothes of the deceased, bag, briefcase pocket, toothpaste, diary of the deceased were burnt and thrown away through the death accused Kundan near the pond of Nathia village and Kosafarm. Deepak also torn the draft of Rs. 15,300/- found in the briefcase and t
Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha
Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab
The presumption of innocence remains paramount; an acquittal will only be overturned if there is compelling evidence that the trial court's decision was perverse or unreasonable.
The prosecution must prove common intention for liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings in acquittal appeals unless they are proven to be perverse or arbitrary.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
In criminal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, especially where direct evidence is absent, reinforcing a presumptio....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals are reviewed under strict guidelines favoring the presumption of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.