##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14731-DB

NAFR ASHOK SAHU

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by

ASHOK SAHU Date: ACQA No. 16 of 2019

2026.03.30

16:53:59 +0530 {Arising out of judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed in Sessions Case

No.100/2011 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg}

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-

Chhawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus

1 - Mama @ D. Mohan, S/o. N. Damodaran, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Ravishankar Shukla Market, Power-House Bhilai, Police Station-

Chhawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2 – Kailash, S/o. Harish Chandra Mochi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Ravishankar Shukla Market, Power-House Bhilai, Police Station-

Chhawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents : None appeared.

(Division Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

2

Judgment on Board (30.03.2026)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The State has preferred this acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) of

Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No.100/2011, by which the learned trial Court has acquitted two respondents herein for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms

Act .

2. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel for the State/appellant would

submit that the trial Court has committed grave illegality in acquitting the respondents herein, therefore, the appeal deserves to

be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and went through

the records with utmost circumspection.

5. At the very outset, we would firstly consider the scope of

interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, for

which, it would be profitable to notice the relevant principle of law

laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of

3

Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand ¹, whereby in Para-11 & 12 it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material

evidence etc. and observed as under:

“11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was

observed thus:

“38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal

of the accused recorded by the trial court.

39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below :

(SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) 6 (2024) 8 SCC 149 “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007)

2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)

‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general

1 2025 INSC 114

4

principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an

order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal

is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or