2026:CGHC:13609-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 804 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

MANPREET ... Petitioner(s)

KAUR Digitally signed b K y A U M R ANPREET versus Date: 2026.03.24 11:09:06 +0530

1 - Manishankar Kaiwart S/o Late Shri Udayram Kewat, Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Malhaar, Chowki Malhar, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Ajay Kumar Bhaina S/o Umend Ram Bhaina R/o Ward No. 10, Malhar Baramdev Chowk, Chowki Malhar, Police Station Masturi District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

23.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 206 days.

2. The State/appellant has preferred the instant application for grant of leave to appeal and appeal against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2025, passed in Sessions Case No.333/2021, by the Court of learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 302/149, 201 & 120-B of the IPC in connection with Crime No. 435/2021 at Police Station- Masturi, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant / State submits that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court nonetheless possesses wide powers of re- appreciation of evidence, and where such reappraisal reveals that the findings of acquittal are unjust, perverse or against the weight of evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to reverse the same. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is patently erroneous, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. Despite there being ample, cogent, and reliable evidence available on record establishing the guilt of the accused/respondents, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted them on wholly insignificant, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable grounds. Learned State counsel submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the conduct of the accused/respondents clearly reflects their ill-intention and culpability, and therefore they ought to have been convicted appropriately by the learned trial Court. It is contended that a clear motive has been duly established through the testimony of the wife of the deceased, and the prosecution, having registered offences under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 302/149, 201 and 120-B of the IPC, has successfully led cogent and reliable evidence by examining as many as 18 witnesses to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record, including the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the circumstances indicating intention to commit murder, and the fact that the injuries inflicted were grievous in nature with clear intent to cause death. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in disregarding crucial circumstances such as the “last seen together” theory, wherein the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons, had consumed alcohol with them, and thereafter went missing, with his dead body being recovered after six days. The Court below has also committed an illegality in disbelieving the seizure of the weapon merely on the ground that it was recovered pursuant to memorandum statements, without appreciating the settled legal position, including the applicability of Section 30 of the Evidence Act regarding consideration of confessional statements of co-

accused. It is thus submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to evaluate the evidence in