Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 3548
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjay S. Agrawal, Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Appellant
Versus
SHANKAR KUJUR and ORS. – Respondent
ACQA/403/2010
Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn an acquittal if the trial Court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 302/149, and 201 - Acquittal appeal - The trial Court acquitted the accused of charges related to murder and rioting, citing lack of credible evidence and hostile witnesses - The prosecution's case was weakened by the absence of blood on seized articles and inconsistencies in witness statements. (Paras 1, 6, 12)
(B) Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn an acquittal if the trial Court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused killed two individuals on 01.01.2005, with the bodies discovered later. Witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence was deemed insufficient.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found no reliable evidence linking the accused to the crime, leading to their acquittal.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial Court's decision, emphasizing the need for cogent evidence to support a conviction and the principle that acquittals should not be overturned lightly.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
CAV Judgment
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 27.10.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.158/2005, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 302/149 (on two counts) and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC')
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.01.2005, PW-2 Mangal Ram Uraon, lodged a report at Police Station Rajpur stating therein that on 01.01.2005, Motiram and Dilip (hereinafter called as 'deceased persons') had gone to the house of Indersai to take CD and TV, but the deceased persons did not return to their house. Thereafter, their family members started searching them and during search, PW-16 Kamal Ram Uraon lodged a missing report at police station and again while their family members were in search, they found the dead body of deceased persons buried in the sand near Mahanadi river. After that, he (PW-2) informed about the same to Police Station, Rajpur, pursuant to which, merg intimation (Ex.P-2) was recorded and FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered against the unknown person. In the said report, he (PW-2) has mentioned that he was suspecting that Bhagat, Shiva and Shivcharan killed the deceased persons. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Exs.P-33 & Ex.P-35 respectively and dead bodies of deceased persons were sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-23 Dr. Sharad Greval, who has proved the postmortem reports vide Ex.P-65 & 66 and opined that cause of death of deceased- Dilip was syncope due to excessive bleeding on account of head injury and mode of death was homicidal in nature. As regards the death of deceased- Motiram, it was opined by PW-23 Dr. Sharad Greval that the dead body of deceased-Motiram was putrefied, therefore, no definite opinion was given by him. .
3. During investigation, accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Exs.P-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24 & 26 respectively, pursuant to which, clubs, bamboo sticks and blood like spotted clubs were seized vide Ex.P-5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25 & 27 from respondent No.1 to 3 & 5 to 11 respectively and likewise, one axe with wooden handle was also seized vide Ex.P-23 from the respondent No.12, pursuant to his memorandum statement vide Ex.P-22. However, no memorandum statement of respondent No.4 was recorded nor any seizure was effected from him. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (unexhibited) dated 13.05.2005, no blood has been found on the seized articles.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 before the concerned trial Court under Sections 148, 302/149 (on two counts) & 201 of IPC. Accused persons-respondent Nos. 1 to 12 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 26 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 66 documents connecting the respondent Nos. 1 to 12/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondent Nos. 1 to 12/accused persons have examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Harishchandra and exhibited six documents i.e. Exs.D-1 to D-6.
6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein of said charges leveled against them.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State would submit that the finding of the trial Court holding that the accused persons/respondent Nos 1 to 12 are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecuti
