State of Chhattisgarh Vs Anil @ Rasul Sori

Anil @ Rasul Sori S/o Shri Panara @ Jalaya @ Sukalu Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Ghodagaon, Police Station Bayanar, District Kondgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. For Respondent : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Amicus Curiae.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

28.10.2025

¶17

The State has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.09.2021 passed in Special Case (NIA) No.58/2021 by the learned Special Judge, NIA Act/Scheduled Offence, District Kondagaon, C.G. whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302,

¶18

2

¶19

395 IPC; Section 25, 27 Arms Act and Section 23, 38(2), 39(2) UAPA Act.

¶20

In compliance of the order dated 06/10/2025, the affidavit has been filed by the Director General (Prisons), Chhattisgarh, and the relevant part of the same is reproduced hereunder:-

¶21

3. That, the deponent, in compliance of the order dated 06/10/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court, most humbly and respectfully submits that the deponent immediately took action upon it and sent a letter dated 13/10/2025 to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) to provide information about the cases pending against the accused / respondent in the State of Chhattisgarh and current status of the said cases. Copy of the letter dated 13/10/2025 is being annexed & marked as ANNEXURE D/1. The deponent also sent a letter dated 13/10/2025 to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh to provide information about the cases pending against the accused /respondent in the State of Chhattisgarh and current status of the said cases. The deponent also sent reminder letters dated 17/10/2025 and 23/10/2025 to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh to seek the aforesaid information. Copies of the letters dated 13/10/2025, 17/10/2025 and 23/10/2025 are being annexed & marked as ANNEXURE D/2. The deponent has also sent a letter dated 23/10/2025 to all the Jail Suprerintendent in the state of Chhattisgarh to provide information about the cases pending against the accused/respondent in the State of Chhattisgarh and current status of the said cases. Copy of the letter dated 23/10/2025 is being annexed & marked as ANNEXURE D/3.

¶22

3

¶23

4. It is respectfully submitted that the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) vide letter dated 16/10/2025 has informed that prisoner number 7748/42 Anil alias Rasool Sukku Sori alias Shankar Sudhakar Sori S/o.- Panara @ Sukalu @ Jalaya, aged about 42 years, R/o.- Kejang (Ghodapara) TehsilMardapal, police station Bayanar, district-Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh) was convicted by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge Gadchiroli (Maharashtra) in Sessions Trial No. 95/2015 U/Ss. 143, 147, 148,302,307,353,120 B, 149,31 of I.P.C., Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 16, 18 and 23 UAPA 1967 vide judgment dated 01.02.2021 and sentenced to life imprisonment and other jail terms. He is currently serving sentence in Central jail, Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) in this case as per the direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gadchiroli (Maharashtra).

¶24

5. It is respectfully submitted that detailed information regarding the various cases of the accused/respondent as provided by the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G., as per Jail records, is as

¶25

follows:

¶26

S.No.	Crime No.	Special Case/Sessions Case No.	Name of the Hon’ble Court	Sect	ions	Details of judgment/sente nce
1.	04/15	81/16	Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Jagdalpur	Sect 148, IPC; 25, Act; 5 Act; 23, 3 UAP	ions 147, 149, 307 Sections 27 Arms Sections 3, Explosives Sections 8(2), 39(2) A Act	Acquitted and released by the order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Jagdalpur on 27.09.2018.
2.	08/14	11/21	Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Jagdalpur	Sect 148, IPC; 25, Act; 5 Act; 23, 3 UAP	ions 147, 149, 307 Sections 27 Arms Sections 3, Explosives Sections 8(2), 39(2) A Act	Acquitted and released in this case by the order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Kondagaon on 30.07.2021.

¶27

4

¶28

3.	64/15	82/16	Hon'ble Court, NIA Act, Jagdalpur	Sections 148, 149, IPC; Sec 25, 27 Act; Sectio 5 Explo Act	147, 307 tions Arms ns 3, sives	Acquitted and released by the of the order Hon'ble Court, NIA Act, Jagdalpur on 17.10.2019.
4.	09/14	65/16	Hon'ble Special Judge (Atrocities), Kondagaon	Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 342(B), IPC; Sec 3(2)(5), (15), 3(1 SC/ST Act	147, 294, 341, 452 tions 3(1) )(10)	Acquitted and released in this case by the order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, Kondagaon on 24.08.2017.
5.	10/14	66/16	Hon'ble Special Judge (Atrocities), Kondagaon	Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 342, 452 Sections (5), 3(1 3(1)(10) S Act	147, 294, 341, IPC; 3(2) )(15), C/ST	Acquitted and released in this case by the order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, Kondagaon on 25.08.2017
6.	12/14	01/17	Hon'ble Special Judge (Atrocities), Kondagaon	Sections 148, 149, 302 Sections 2 Arms Sections 38(2), UAPA Sections (5) SC/ST	147, 364, IPC; 5, 27 Act; 23, 39(2) Act, 3(2) Act	Acquitted and released in this case by the order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, Kondagaon on 20.03.2018.
7.	20/15	09/12	Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Jagdalpur	Sections 148, 149, 395 Sections, 23(1), 3 39(2) UAP	147, 506, IPC; 8(2), A Act	Acquitted and released in this case by the order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Jagdalpur on 06.09.2019.
8.	-	95/15	Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli (Maharashtra)	Sections 147, 148, 307, 120B, 149 25 Arms Sections 18, 23 Act, 1967	143, 302, 353, , 31, Act; 16, UAPA	Convicted and sentenced by the of the Hon'ble Additional order Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli (Maharashtra) on 01.02.2021. Currently serving the sentence.
9.	11/14	30/18	Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon	Sections 148, 149, 506, 341, 452 IPC	147, 294, 342,	Acquitted and released in this case by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon on 08.01.2019
10.	85/15	57/21	Hon'ble Special Judge,	Sections 148, 149,	147, 307	Acquitted and released in this

¶29

5

¶30

			NIA Act, Jagdalpur	IPC; Se 25, 27 Act; Se 23, 38(2), UAPA Act	ctions Arms ctions 39(2)	case order Hon'bl Judge, Konda 17.09.	by the of the e Special NIA Act, gaon on 2021.
11.	08/16	58/21	Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Act, Jagdalpur	Sections 395, 302 Sections 2 Arms Sections 38(2), UAPA Act	364, IPC; 5, 27 Act; 23, 39(2)	Acquitt release case order Hon'bl Judge, Konda 17.09.	ed and d in this by the of the e Special NIA Act, gaon on 2021

¶31

To demonstrate the above facts mentioned in para 4 and 5

¶32

above, copy of the letter dated 16/10/2025 is annexed &

¶33

marked as Annexure D/4.

¶34

6. It is respectfully submitted that Superintendent of Police, District Kondagaon vide letter dated 18/10/2025 has also provided details of cases against the accused/respondent

¶35

which are as follows:

¶36

S.No	Police Station	Crime No. & Sections	Case Status Update
1.	Bayanar	Crime No.01/2013, Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act; Section 3, 5 Explosives Act, Sections 23, 38(2), 39(2) UAPA	Case No.: 231/2012 Acquitted vide order dated 20-09-2016
2.	Bayanar	Crime No.: 02/2014 Sections: 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, 3, 5 Explosives Act, 25, 27 Arms Act, 23, 38(2), 39(2) UAPA	Case No:: 460/14 Acquitted vide order dated 24-06-2019
3.	Mardapal	Crime No.: 06/2014 Sections: 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, 3, 5 Explosives Act	Case No.: 253/14 Acquitted vide order dated 20-09-2017

¶37

To demonstrate the above facts mentioned in para 6 above, copy of the letter dated 18/10/2025 is annexed & marked as Annexure D/5.

¶38

7. That, the deponent respectfully submits that he is duty bound to abide by and adhere to the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court.

¶39

8. That, the contents of this affidavit have been drafted according to my instructions and the contents thereof are

¶40

6

¶41

true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and based upon the official records.

¶42

So far as the criminal cases which were pending against the applicant at Chhattisgarh, it has been submitted at para 5 of the affidavit that the applicant has been acquitted in those cases. However, from the said affidavit it is manifest that the accused respondent was found to be convicted in a case at Gadchiroli, Maharashtra in Case Crime No.95/15 for the offence under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 353, 120B, 149, 31, 25 Arms Act; Sections 16, 18, 23 UAPA Act, 1967 and convicted by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli Maharashtra on 01/02/2021. (see: column 8 of para 5 of affidavit). It is stated that the appellant has also preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay against his conviction in the said case.

¶43

It is further transpires from the record that as there were some cases pending against the appellant in the State of Chhattisgarh in the warrant of arrest, it was mentioned by the Court concerned order sheet dated 01/02/2021, copy of the same has been annexed, whereby it was stated that the appellant shall be detained at Chhattisgarh as there were some cases pending against him. Hence, presently he is in Central Jail, Jagdalpur.

¶44

As far as the present Acquittal appeal filed by the State is concerned, the brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 22.01.2010 at about 8.00 PM, the Naxali Rasul Sori (the present respondent/accused), Kosa, Raiju alongwith 100-150 members of People's War Group has entered into the house of the complainant PW-03 Rajnibai at Village

¶45

7

¶46

Aamgaon, near Mata Mandir & abducted her husband namely Jugdhar Sori and looted the grains, silver, gold, animals and case of Rs. 2,50,000/- with daily usable articles which is total amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Later on the Jugdhar Sori was found murdered near the Matagudi. On the complaint of complainant Rajnibai, an FIR was registered at Police Station Bayanar, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under section 364, 302, 395 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 27 Arms Act and 23, 38(2), 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It was found in the course of investigation that, at the time of occurrence, the present accused was present alongwith the other co-accused persons, therefore, charge sheet has been filed against the accused respondent before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 395 of Indian Penal Code and section 25, 27 Arms Act and 23, 38(2), 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against the respondent/accused.

¶47

After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Statements of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent.

¶48

After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 17.09.2021 acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal.

¶49

8

¶50

Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has failed to assert the material placed by the prosecution in order to prove the case against the respondent/accused and completely failed to understand the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that in present case, every witness was examined before the trial Court and the same was supported the case of prosecution and established the case beyond any reasonable doubt and on contrary, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondent in all reasonable doubts. Hence, the impugned judgment requires to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be convicted for the offence committed by him.

¶51

We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

¶52

Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 22 as follows:-

¶53

Ghasia Sori (PW-8) stated in her examination-in-chief that she came to know the day after the incident about her brother Jugdhar being abducted by Naxalites and that two days later, an incident of loot was committed by the accused Rasool and other Naxalites. However, during cross-examination, this witness denied having seen the incident with her own eyes. The fact that the accused was involved in the incident along with other Naxalites is also missing from her police statement. In paragraph 7 of her cross-examination, this witness further admitted that all the Naxalites had their faces covered.

¶54

9

¶55

Therefore, in light of these facts revealed during crossexamination and the contradictions between her police statement and her testimony in court, it does not appear credible that this witness actually saw those persons, who committed the offence of loot.

¶56

19. Another witness examined by the prosecution, Neeldhar Vaidh PW-6, also stated in his examination-in-chief that he came to know about the incident the day after it occurred. In his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he had not seen the incident taking place himself. Therefore, the prosecution does not gain any benefit from the testimony of this witness either.

¶57

20. Sub-Inspector Hubalal Chandrakar PW-7 stated that he recorded the First Information Report (Exhibit P-5) in this case and prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-3) of the scene of occurrence. Witness SDOP Kapil Chandra PW-1 stated that during the investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and formally arrested the accused in this case, as the accused was already detained in connection with another offence. Since there is an absence of direct or circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, the statements of these witnesses are merely formal in nature and do not lead to any conclusive finding that the accused was involved in committing the offence.

¶58

22. As a result, since the charges have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused Anil alias Rasool Sori is given

¶59

10

¶60

the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offences charged under Sections 364, 302, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 23, 38(2), and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

¶61

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶62

“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal.

¶63

Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

¶64

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the prosecution

¶65

has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions and lack of direct or reliable evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offences. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Further, the FIR was lodged after a long delay of six years that too without explaining sufficient and cogent reasons. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, this Court finds that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case.

¶66

11

¶67

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record.

¶68

Accordingly, the present Acquittal Appeal is dismissed .

¶69

It is made clear that the Director General (Prisons), Chhattisgarh, Raipur shall transmit the accused respondent to his parent State and confine in the jail where he has been convicted in the State of Maharashtra.

¶70

Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General (Prisons), Chhattisgar, Raipur for necessary information and follow up action.

¶71

SD/SD/-

¶72

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶73

Gowri/

¶74

Amardeep

State of Chhattisgarh v. Anil @ Rasul Sori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Anil @ Rasul Sori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raththu Das @ Raigarhiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The South Eastern Coalfield Limited Vs Smt. Nanki Bai

Keval Singh Rathiya @ Keval Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manna Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kashi Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh