In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse, illegal, or suffers from manifest misappreciation. Where two reasonable views exist, the view favoring the accused must be preferred, consistent with the principle that no innocent shall be condemned.

NAFR

Judgment on Board

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

06/04/2026

1. Heard on admission.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District–North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 50/2016, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.04.2016, complainant reported the matter at the concerned Police Station, stating that on 09.04.2016 at about 8:00 PM, she had gone to a borewell to fetch water. Upon her return, she found her husband, Jagannath, lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard. Her minor son, Karan, aged about 10 years, informed her that accused Suddhu Ram and his wife, accused Birno Bai, had assaulted the deceased with sticks and a pestle on account of suspicion regarding theft of a chicken. It was alleged that accused Suddhu Ram inflicted blows with a stick, while accused Birno Bai assaulted the deceased with a wooden plank, resulting in injuries to his right temple and right rib. The incident was stated to have been witnessed by Mohan and Ledgu Ram. Due to the late hours of the night and the remoteness and sensitivity of the village area, the complainant, after informing the village head (Sarpanch) and Kotwar, proceeded along with villagers to lodge the report. On the basis of such information, Inquest Intimation (Ex.P/2) was registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, and pursuant thereto, First Information Report (Ex.P/1) was lodged, leading to registration of Crime No. 86/2016, which was taken up for investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, notices (Ex.P/3-A) were issued to witnesses for their presence during the inquest proceedings. Panchayatnama of the dead body (Ex.P/3) was prepared. A duty certificate (Ex.P/22) was issued to Constable No. 862, Narad Ram Vatti, for conducting the postmortem examination. The postmortem requisition (Ex.P/18) was duly filled and postmortem report (Ex.P/12) was obtained, after which the dead body was handed over to the family members. Seizure proceedings were conducted wherein, as per seizure memo (Ex.P/7), the pestle allegedly used in the offence was seized; as per Ex.P/8, a bamboo stick was seized; and as per Ex.P/9, blood stained and plain soil from the spot were collected. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination and reports thereof were obtained (Ex.P/21 and Ex.P/24). Arrest memos of the accused were prepared as per Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/20 and intimation of arrest was duly given to their family members. Statements of witnesses were recorded under due process. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, where it was registered as Criminal Case No. 158/2016 on 04.07.2016 and subsequently committed/transferred to the competent Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. During the course of trial, charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused persons, to which they abjured guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal P