##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6137-DB

D sii gg nit ea dl l by

y

NAFR

AKHILESH

AKHILESH BEOHAR

BEOHAR Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.02.05

15:55:43

+0530

ACQA No. 185 of 2020

• The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir

Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant

versus

• Chakradhar Singh, S/o Ballabh Singh, aged about 32 Years, R/o Faraswani,

P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent

For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government

Advocate.

For Respondent : None.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Judgment on Board

04.02.2026

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

Heard on admission.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the

judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions

Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Sessions Case No.32/2018,

whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the

charge under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) on the

basis of benefit of doubt.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.08.2018 at about 1:40 PM,

PW-2 Akti Bai lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Dabhra against the

accused/respondent alleging therein that on 10.08.2018, at about

2

10:00 PM, she was sleeping in her house along with her children after

having dinner. It is further alleged that at about 10:00 PM, when her

daughter PW-1 Mamta woke up to attend nature’s call, she noticed smoke

emanating from another room of the house. Thereafter, she and PW-1

Mamta went towards the said room and allegedly saw

accused/respondent- Chakradhar Singh, present there, who fled from the

spot upon being noticed. A plastic bottle containing kerosene was

allegedly found near the house. Upon raising an alarm, the villagers

gathered at the spot and the fire brigade was called, which subsequently

extinguished the fire. It is alleged that PW-3 Sohan Lal and PW-4 Arun

Sanvra also saw the accused/respondent fleeing from the spot.

3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-9.

From the spot, burnt clothes, burnt wooden logs, one plastic bottle

emitting the smell of kerosene and burnt ash were seized vide Ex.P-5. The

accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-14 and the

statements of the witnesses were recorded.

4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the

accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. The

accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the

evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the

accused/respondent of charge leveled against him.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned Trial

Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the

aforementioned charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits

that the trial Court has also erred in disbelieving the evidence of

3

PW-1 Mamta & PW-2 Akti Bai, who are natural witnesses and whose

testimonies clearly establish that respondent was seen fleeing from the

spot immediately after the incident of fire. He further submits that the

factum of fire stands duly proved and the recovery of the kerosene bottle

further corroborates the prosecution case. Despite the availability of

sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has

committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the

impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is

liable to be set aside.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the material

available on record.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of

Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of

interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking

Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether

the trial court's view c