Dismissed

The state of chhattisgarh v. Baiju alias Janak Ram

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2025ACQA/303/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed against acquittal of eighteen respondents for unlawful assembly assault causing one death and injuries to another. Court found prosecution evidence contradictory, FIR backdated, recoveries uncorroborated without FSL report, medical evidence inconsistent with ocular account, and trial court findings not perverse; appeal against acquittal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

The state of chhattisgarh Vs Baiju alias… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:47451-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 303 of 2010

¶6

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

¶7

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.19 18:26:52 +0530

¶8

The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Baiju Alias Janak Ram S/o Janta Bharti Aged About 65 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶12

2 - Fagulal S/o Baiju Alias Janakram Bharti Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶13

3 - Rameshwar S/o Manaram Bharti Aged About 45 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶14

4 - Phulkumar S/o Shri Prem Lal Bharti Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶15

5 - Rathlal S/o Janak Ram Bharti Aged About 30 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶16

6 - Rameshwar S/o Balarma Tande Aged About 35 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶17

7 - Bhagaau S/o Balaram Tande Aged About 50 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶18

8 - Phirat Kumar S/o Bhagaau Tande Aged About 24 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶19

¶20

9 - Kashiram S/o Nanki Tandan Aged About 35 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G. 10 - Manoj Ram S/o Chhotaku Ram Tande Aged About 20 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶21

11 - Khoru Alias Lakshram S/o Chhotaku Ram Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶22

12 - Kalas Ram S/o Chhotaku Ram Tande Aged About 22 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶23

13 - Hemant Lal S/o Aaju Lal Satnami Aged About 25 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶24

14 - Vijay Lal S/o Aaju Lal Aged About 19 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶25

15 - Santosh S/o Aaju Lal Satnami Aged About 20 Years OccupationAgriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶26

16 - Ganga Ram S/o Janak Ram Alias Baiju Bharti Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶27

17 - Dhaneshwar S/o Manaram Bharti Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶28

18 - Shiv Kumar Alias Godol S/o Rameshwar Bharti Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶29

Respondents

¶30

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur,Dy.A.G.
For Respondents : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶35

16.09.2025

¶36

The State has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.07.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 06/2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, CG, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 & 302/149 of IPC.

¶37

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02/11/2005 at about 7-8 p.m., village Ulkhar, P.S. Sarangarh, by making illegal and unlawful assembly, assaulted Ghashiram PW-13 and Thakur Ram (since deceased) by means of lathi sabbal and tangiya. It is alleged that due to assault by respondents, Ghashiram PW-13 sustained injuries and Thakur Ram has died. Based on above facts, Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-33. On the basis of which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-36. Nazri Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Memorandum statements were recorded. After completing the investigation, final report was prepared. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein.

¶38

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated.

¶39

After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.07.2007 acquitted the

¶40

¶41

respondents/accused herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-15, who also stated in her statement regarding the alleged commission of offence. Learned trial Court has misapprehended and miss-appreciated the findings available on record and has arrived an erroneous finding. He further submits that the learned trial Court has over-looked the statement of the complainant PW-12 who stated that by forming unlawful assembly, the respondents have assaulted the deceased in different part of body by means of sabbal, hand and fist, due to which, he died. Hence, looking to the act committed by the respondents, the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set-aside.

¶43

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the judgment of acquittal is well merited and does not require any interference.

¶44

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection.

¶45

This is appeal against the judgment of acquittal filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. in exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 378(1) or under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. The appellate Courts are required to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box and also

¶46

¶47

required to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonably person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused.

¶48

The Supreme Court in the matter of C.Antony v. Raghavan Nair (AIR 2003 SC 182) , unless the High Court arrives at definite conclusion that the findings recorded by trial Court are perverse, it would not substitute its own view on a totally different perspective and also as held by the Supreme Court in Ramanand Yadav V. Prabhunath Jha (AIR 2004 SC 1053) , the appellate Court in considering the appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.

¶49

The scope of interference in appeals against acquittal is well settled. In Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 1083) , the Supreme Court has held in para 6 as under:-

¶50

“. . . . the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the

¶51

¶52

limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere within an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous."

¶53

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 (2022 SCC OnLine SC 984) has held as follows:-

¶54

"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. 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

¶55

¶56

would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at

¶57

all.”

¶58

In the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022 8 SCC 440) , the Supreme Court held as under:

¶59

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC. the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."

¶60

While exercising the appellate jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal, the High Courts or the appellate Courts are fully empowered to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court is required to discuss the grounds given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons.

¶61

In the present case, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed as follows:-

¶62

¶63

“42. B.R. Singh PW-21, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the deceased Thakur Ram had enmity with other individuals in the village, and copies of the roznamchasanha related to the individuals with whom Thakur Ram had enmity have been attached in the present case."

¶64

46. At the time of the death of deceased Thakur Ram, or when he was being injured, the accused were present at the place of the incident. However, in this case, truth and falsehood have become so intermingled that it is not possible to separate them. The investigation of the crime has also not aided the Court in this regard. In such a situation, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused, being part of an unlawful assembly, were armed with deadly weapons, used violence, and with a common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to Ghasiram with a hard and rough object, and caused the death of the deceased Thakur Ram by beating him with sticks, tabbal, and tangiya. Hence, the charges against the accused are not proved.

¶65

47. "On the basis of the above discussion and analysis, the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, are not found to be proven by the prosecution. Therefore, all the accused

¶66

¶67

are acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code ”

¶68

In the present case, the information regarding the death of the deceased Thakurram had already reached Tarangad Police Station on 02-11-2005. Despite this, the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not included in the initial First Information Report (FIR). Furthermore, it was only five days after the registration of the offense that information under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh — and even that was in relation to an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. This indicates that, in fact, no offence had been registered against the accused as on 02-11-2005, and the FIR appears to have been backdated. The delayed submission of information to the Judicial Magistrate casts doubt on the integrity of the investigation.

¶69

On a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, it becomes evident that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The memorandum statements of the accused are inadmissible as they were recorded even before the accused were formally arrested or taken into custody, which is contrary to law. Several such memorandum are not in the handwriting of the officer who claimed to have recorded them, and even the witnesses to the same turned hostile, denying any recovery in their presence. The alleged recoveries of weapons and blood-stained articles thus remain uncorroborated, especially in the absence of any FSL or serological report proving that the stains were of human origin.

¶70

¶71

Medical evidence too does not support the ocular version in material particulars.

¶72

The prosecution case is further weakened by unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR and the Section 157 CrPC report to the Magistrate, coupled with the fact that the initial report was only under Section 307 IPC and Section 302 was added subsequently, despite the fact that the information regarding the death of the Deceased has already reached to the police station. Contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the Investigating Officer also reveal that the investigation was perfunctory and not free from doubt. In these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence, and the evidence falls short of the standard required for conviction. The prosecution having failed to prove the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are rightly acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶73

In light of the above analysis, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of prior enmity between the deceased and other individuals, coupled with the unreliable and inconsistent nature of the evidence, has created significant doubt regarding the actual sequence of events. The investigation in the case, has not provided the clarity or support necessary for a fair adjudication. Furthermore, the testimony of the injured witness (PW-13), who attributed his injuries as accidental one owing to fight between the cattle, rather than any assault by the accused, further weakens the

¶74

¶75

prosecution's case. The prosecution has not successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents, as members of an unlawful assembly, were armed with deadly weapons or with a common intention to use violence and cause harm. The evidence in the case fails to prove that the respondents voluntarily caused injury to Ghansiram or the death of the deceased, Thakur Ram. In such circumstances, where material contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

¶76

Given the fact that more than 19 years have elapsed since the date of the incident, and taking into consideration the protracted nature of the proceedings, as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court which do not appear to suffer from perversity or manifest illegality, this Court finds no merit in interfering with the acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed .

¶77

The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

¶78

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

¶79

Amardeep

The state of chhattisgarh v. Baiju alias Janak Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The state of chhattisgarh v. Baiju alias Janak Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rashmi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akram Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunita Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Lokendra Chaturvedi (Deleted)

Ashok Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gokul Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh