Dismissed¶35

State of Chhattisgarh v. Lokendra Chaturvedi (Deleted)

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2025ACQA/416/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — ACQA No. 416 of 2010, decided 16/09/2025 by Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Bibhu Datta Guru, J. State appeal under S.378(1) Cr.P.C. against acquittal dated 03.10.2006 (Sessions Judge, Surguja, ST No.298/2004) of Vinita Singh, Mukesh Goswami and Lokendra Chaturvedi (died during pendency) for the murder of Bhupat Singh (Ss.302/120B, 201, 450 IPC). Circumstantial evidence case, no eyewitness; scope of interference with acquittal; benefit of doubt; panchsheel/Sarda tests; appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondents was upheld. ¶35

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Lokendra… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja, warrants interference by this Court in the State's appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court must keep in mind the trial Court's advantage of observing the demeanour and conduct of witnesses, and that the accused remains entitled to the benefit of doubt, the doubt being such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to guilt.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Death of deceased Bhupat Singh was homicidal in nature, established by the evidence of Dr.Faizal Firdausi (PW-1) and autopsy report Ex.P/2 and not substantially disputed on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

Key takeaways

While exercising appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal, the High Courts/appellate Courts are fully empowered to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence, and are required to discuss the grounds given by the trial Court to acquit and then dispel those reasons.ratio¶14
Even assuming the statements of Priyajeet Singh, Abhishek Kashyap and Pandey about the number of assailants are untrue, there is still no direct evidence proving whether one or multiple people committed the murder.ratio¶27
Pandey (PW-19) altered his version between his earlier police statement of 30.05.2003 (Ex.D-7), in which one person was sitting on Bhupat Singh's bed, and his court testimony, in which he mentioned more than one person.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal (ACQA) by the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 03.10.2006 of the Sessions Judge, Surguja, in Sessions Trial No.298/2004, acquitting Lokendra Chaturvedi (since dead), Vinita Singh and Mukesh Goswami of charges under Sections 302/120B, 201 and 450 IPC for the homicidal death of Bhupat Singh on the night of 29.05.2003. The case rested wholly on circumstantial evidence; there was no eyewitness. The Division Bench (Ramesh Sinha, CJ) reaffirmed the limited scope of interference in acquittal appeals (C.Antony; Ramanand Yadav; Tota Singh; Kistoora Ram; Jafarudheen) and the tests for conviction on circumstantial evidence (Padala Veera Reddy; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda), and found no perversity or manifest illegality in the trial Court's findings. Weighing the lapse of more than 22 years and the protracted proceedings, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld; decided 16.09.2025 (Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge concurring in signature).

2025:CGHC:47439-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Digitally BABLU signed by RAJENDRA BABLU BHANARKAR RAJENDRA BHANARKAR

¶6

ACQA No. 416 of 2010

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Surguja (CG)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Lokendra Chaturvedi (died and his name has been deleted as per the Court’s order dated 16.09.2025)

¶11

Vinita Singh, W/o Late Bhupat Singh, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Near Central School Bhagwanpur, Thana Ambikapur Dehat, District – Surguja (CG)

¶12

Mukesh Goswami, S/o Markanday Goswami, Aged about 28 years, R/o Darripara, behind Women Hospital, Ambikapur, Thana-Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent : Ms.Hamida Siddique, Advocate No.2 For Respondent : Mr.Awadh Tripathi, Advocate No.3

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

¶18

16/09/2025

¶19

¶20

1. By this appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. the appellant/State has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja, in Sessions Trial No.298/2004, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the charge of Sections 302/120B, 201 and 450 of the IPC for causing homicidal death of Bhupat Singh amounting to murder and causing disappearance of evidence of criminal case in sharing common intention.

¶21

2. As per case of the prosecution, on the night of 29.05.2003, Bhupat Singh, resident of Premlata Bhawan, Manendragarh Road, Bhagwanpur, had dinner and watched television before going to sleep in his room. His servant, Pandey, was also sleeping in the same room. His wife was sleeping in another room with their two daughters, and in the room adjacent to her, their son Priyajit Singh was sleeping with his friend Abhishek Kashyap. Around 11:30 P.M., accused Vinita Singh (respondent No.2) woke Priyajit Singh and informed him that Naxalite miscreants had entered the premises. Abhishek Kashyap also woke up. When they attempted to go out and check, Vinita Singh stopped them, saying "Don't go." At that moment, Pandey (the servant), who was sleeping in Bhupat Singh’s room, came in, and all of them gathered in one room and locked the door from inside. Bhupat Singh was shouting, but due to fear, none of them went outside. Later, through a peephole in the door, they saw three individuals entering Bhupat Singh's room. One of them was wearing a white

¶22

¶23

shirt and was seen taking away Bhupat Singh's licensed gun. After the alleged criminals left, Priyajit Singh went to his father’s room and found him lying dead and covered in blood. He then went with Pandey to the house next door, belonging to Beena Katlariya, and informed his maternal uncle Deepak Kumar Sharma about the incident. Deepak Kumar Sharma, along with his tractor driver, immediately went to his sister and brother-in-law’s house. His sister informed him that around 11:30 P.M., three to four men had entered the house through the back door, pointed a gun at her head and demanded 50,000, threatening to kill her if she did not ₹ comply. When they asked about the licensed gun, she gestured towards its location. The men then went to Bhupat Singh’s room, murdered him with a sharp weapon, and left with the licensed gun.

¶24

3. After witnessing Bhupat Singh’s body lying dead and bloodied on the floor, Deepak Kumar Sharma reported the incident to Gandhinagar Police Station. Subhash Das, the officer-in-charge at Gandhinagar Police Station, went to the scene after recording the report. On the morning of 30.05.2003 at around 8:30 A.M., after inspecting Bhupat Singh’s body and the crime scene, he sent the body for postmortem to the District Hospital, Ambikapur where Dr.Faizal Firdausi (PW-1) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-2 and found following injuries:-

¶25

“1. A horizontal cut wound on the left cheek, measuring 10x5 cm, deep up to the bone.

¶26

A cut wound on the left occipital region, measuring 6x3x0.5 cm.

¶27

¶28

A deep cut wound on the tip of the left shoulder, measuring 5x2 cm, up to the bone.

¶29

A deep cut wound on the front of the left arm, measuring 10x5 cm, up to the bone.

¶30

A cut wound on the back of the left arm, measuring 5x3x2 cm.

¶31

A cut wound below the left elbow, measuring 5x2x0.5 cm.

¶32

A deep cut wound on the left side of the chest, measuring 15x10 cm, up to the rib cage.

¶33

A deep cut wound on the posterior axillary fold, measuring 5x2 cm, up to the rib cage.

¶34

A deep cut wound on the left lumbar region, measuring 10x5 cm, up to the abdominal cavity, with intestines protruding out.

¶35

A deep cut wound on the front of the left knee, measuring 5x3 cm, up to the bone.

¶36

A deep cut wound on the middle of the left leg, measuring 7x3 cm, up to the bone.

¶37

A deep cut wound on the right occipital region, measuring 10x5 cm, up to the bone.

¶38

Three deep cut wounds on the back of the neck, each measuring 7x2 cm, up to the bone.

¶39

A cut wound on the front of the right arm, measuring 7x3 cm.

¶40

A deep cut wound below the right elbow, measuring 5x3 cm, up to the bone.

¶41

A cut wound on the front of the right thigh, measuring 10x5x2 cm.”

¶42

The doctor has opined that death was due to the effects of the injuries noted above. Death was homicidal in nature. Knife was examined by the said doctor vide Ex.P-3 and opined that the

¶43

¶44

injuries mentioned in the postmortem report of deceased Bhupat Singh could have been caused by the knife that was examined. Spot map was prepared by the patwari vide Ex.P-5. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-11. Bedsheet stains with blood and pillow covers stands with blood were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-12. Investigating officer also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-14. Memorandum statement of accused Lokendra Chaturvedi (now dead) was recorded vide Ex.P-16. Memorandum statement of accused Vinita Singh was recorded vide Ex.P-17. Pistol stains with blood and full shirt stains with blood were seized vide Ex.P-18. Motorcycle was seized from accused Lokendra Chaturvedi (now dead) vide Ex.P-19. One cap stains with blood was seized from accused Vinita Singh vide Ex.P20. One diary has been seized from accused Vinita Singh vide Ex.P-21. Love letter was seized from accused Mukesh Goswami vide Ex.P-22. Panchnama of love letter was prepared vide Ex,.P23. Accused Lokesh Chaturvedi (now dead) was arrested on 31.05.2003 vide arrest memo Ex.P-24. Memorandum statement of accused Mukesh Goswami was recorded vide Ex.P-25. Knife was seized on the pointing out of accused Mukesh Goswami vide Ex.P-26. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-27. Accused Vinita Singh was arrested on 14.06.2003 vide Ex.P-28. Accused Mukesh Goswami was arrested on 20.10.2003 vide arrest memo Ex.P-29. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-32. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-35 and as per

¶45

¶46

FSL report (Ex.P-36), blood was found on Articles A cotton, Article C bedsheet, Article D shirt seized from accused Lokendra Chaturvedi (now dead) and Article E tank of motor cycle seized from accused Lokendra Chaturvedi (now dead). Seized knife was also to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-41), blood was found on Article A i.e. knife seized from accused Mukesh Goswami. Letters seized from accused Mukesh Goswami were sent for examination to handwriting expert and as per handwriting expert report (Ex.P-43), the red enclosed writing exhibit P-23 stamped and marked S-1 and writings exhibit D-1 stamped and marked Q1 & Q2 all have been written by one and the same person. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur.

¶47

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and claimed innocence and false implication in crime in question.

¶48

5. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur has acquitted the respondents from all the charges. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

¶49

6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court should have accepted the evidence of PW-17-Subhash Das, Investigating Officer, regarding the seizure

¶50

¶51

of the licensed gun (Article A-1) on the production and at the instance of respondent No. 1-Lokendra Chaturvedi (now dead). The identification of the gun by Priyajeet Singh (PW-9), son of the deceased, further implicates respondent No. 1, who is obligated to explain his possession of the gun. He further submits that although the independent witness, Prakash Sahu (PW-10), did not support the prosecution's case, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-17, Subhash Das. He also submits that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence indicating intimate relations between respondents No. 1 and 3. The trial Judge gave undue weightage to minor omissions and contradictions. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge is bad in law, improper, and unjust, warranting interference. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside.

¶52

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 oppose the submissions made by learned State Counsel and submit that learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has acquitted the respondents from all the charges, which warrants no interference by this Court.

¶53

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and record of the trial Court.

¶54

9. 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

¶55

¶56

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 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.

¶57

10. As held by the Supreme Court in C.Antony v. Raghavan Nair¹ , 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 Jha² , 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.

¶58

11. The scope of interference in appeals against acquittal is well settled. In Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab³ , the Supreme Court has held in para 6 as under:-

¶59

“……….the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach

¶60

1 AIR 2003 SC 182

¶61

2 AIR 2004 SC 1053

¶62

3 AIR 1987 SC 1083

¶63

¶64

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 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.”

¶65

12. 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 Ram⁴ has held as follows:-

¶66

"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

¶67

4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

13. In the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala⁵ , the

¶71

Supreme Court held as under:

¶72

"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."

¶73

14. 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.

¶74

15. In the light of aforesaid dictum and proposition of law, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

¶75

5 (2022) 8 SCC 440

¶76

¶77

16. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of injuries found over the body of deceased Bhupat Singh has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, same is also established by the evidence of Dr.Faizal Firdausi (PW-1) and autopsy report vide Ex.P/2. Death of deceased Bhupat Singh was homicidal in nature.

¶78

17. In the present case, there is no eyewitness. The trial Court in para 24 of the impugned judgment has held as under:-

¶79

“The prosecution has not presented any direct evidence to link the accused to the crimes under consideration. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to link the accused / respondents to the crimes under consideration can be classified as follows:-

¶80

a. The romantic relationship between Accused No. 3, Mukesh Goswami, and Accused No. 2, Vinita Singh.

¶81

b. Deceased Bhupat Singh physically abused Accused No. 2, Vinita Singh, due to her relationship with Accused No. 3, Mukesh Goswami.

¶82

c. Accused No. 3, Mukesh Goswami, was seen with sword and knife (sharp-edged weapons) on 29.05.2003, around 10:00 PM.

¶83

d. On the night of 29.05.2003, at 11:30 P.M., Accused No. 2, Vinita Singh, falsely told her son, Priyajeet Singh (PW-9), and his friend, Abhishek Kashyap (PW5), that five or six people were threatening her with a pistol and demanding 50,000. ₹

¶84

e. Accused No. 2, Vinita Singh, prevented Priyajeet Singh (PW-9) and Abhishek Kashyap (PW-5) from going to the deceased's room during the murder.

¶85

¶86

f. After escaping from police custody on 30.05.2003, Accused No. 3, Mukesh Goswami, allegedly offered bribes to police officers to help him.

¶87

g. Based on information provided by Accused No. 1, Lokendra Chaturvedi, on 31.05.2003, the police recovered the stolen gun, bloodstained white shirt, and motorcycle (Registration No. MH28G/5418).

¶88

h. On 14.06.2003, based on information provided by Accused No. 2, Vinita Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector M.S. Chandel (PW-14) recovered a bloodstained cap. i. On 20.10.2003, based on information provided by Accused No. 3, Mukesh Goswami, Station House Officer A.S. Narbaria (PW-15) recovered a bloodstained knife.”

¶89

18. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors.⁶ , it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

¶90

“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶91

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶92

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶93

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of

¶94

6 AIR 1990 SC 79

¶95

¶96

explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

¶97

19. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra⁷ , which state as under :-

¶98

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;

¶99

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

¶100

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

¶101

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

¶102

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

¶103

20. From examination-in-chief of Priyajeet Singh (PW-9) (son of the deceased), it is known that on 29.05.2003, he had gone to a wedding at a friend’s house along with his friend Abhishek

¶104

7 (1984) 4 SCC 116

¶105

¶106

Kashyap (PW-5). They returned home at around 8 P.M. Shortly after they arrived, his maternal uncle Deepak Sharma (mama) (PW-012) also came over. That day, sewai (sweet vermicelli) was prepared at home. He, his friend, mother, father, and uncle all ate the sewai, but it tasted bad, so they left it unfinished. After eating, they watched a television for a while, and later, he went to the guest room with his friend and started listening to a CD. They listened to the CD until around 10 P.M. and then went to sleep. In his father’s room, his father and Pandey (PW-19) were sleeping. At around 11 P.M., his mother woke up and came to them, saying that 3-4 miscreants had broken into the house and were demanding something. By the time his mother woke him up, Pandey (PW-19) had already entered their room, frightened. The account given by Priyajeet Singh (PW-9) is corroborated by Abhishek Kashyap (PW-5), who also stated that at around 11 P.M., Priyajeet Singh’s mother woke them up saying that Naxalites had entered the house. Two to three minutes after waking them up, Pandey (PW-19) came into their room as well.

¶107

21. Deepak Sharma (PW-12), who reached the house of deceased Bhupat Singh on the night of 29.05.2003 at around 11:30 P.M. after receiving a phone call, stated that upon asking, accused Vinita Singh (Accused No. 02) told him that her brother-in-law (Bhupat Singh) had been killed and that the intruders had demanded 50,000/- from her. This supports that Deepak Sharma ₹ went immediately to the police station that night and reported the

¶108

¶109

matter. In his statement recorded in the First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P-27) and Inquest Report No. 34/03 (Ex.P-32), he stated that when he went to his sister Vinita Singh’s house, she informed him that five to six men entered from the back door, pointed a pistol at her, and demanded 50,000/-. From the ₹ statements recorded in the FIR and Inquest Report and the testimonies of Priyajeet Singh (PW-9) and Abhishek Kashyap (PW-5), it can be concluded that on the night of 29.05.2003, during the murder of Bhupat Singh, accused Vinita Singh informed her son Priyajeet Singh and his friend Abhishek that five to six men had entered the house and demanded 50,000/- at ₹ gunpoint.

¶110

22. Priyajeet Singh (PW-9) stated in his examination-in-chief that all of them, out of fear, gathered in one room, and he closed the middle door. After that, from his father's room, they heard shouting. The intruders were yelling, “Give us money or we will kill you,” and his father was pleading, “We have nothing; please let us go.” A little later, the voices stopped. He further stated that sounds were also coming from the adjacent room near the bathroom. Peeping through a hole in the door, he saw 2-3 men. The lights were out, so he could not see clearly, but one man was wearing a white shirt and holding a gun. After a while, they left with the gun.

¶111

23. Abhishek Kashyap (PW-5) stated that Pandey (PW-19) told them that 4-5 men with covered faces were speaking with “uncle” (Bhupat Singh), and there was noise and abusive language from

¶112

¶113

that room. However, they could not hear clearly because their room’s door was closed. From Pandey’s examination-in-chief, it is known that on the night of the incident, he was sleeping in Bhupat Singh’s room. Around 4-5 people entered the house and started shouting, which woke him up. He then went to Vinita Singh’s room, where Chintu (Priyajeet Singh), his friend, and Kukku Didi were present.

¶114

24. During cross-examination of Priyajeet Singh (PW-9), attempts were made to highlight contradictions between his court’s testimony and his earlier police statement (Ex.D-3, recorded on 05.06.2003 by Sub-Inspector Subhash Das). However, no significant discrepancies were found between his court’s statement and the earlier police record (Ex.D-1).

¶115

25. Pandey (PW-19) in para 7 of his cross-examination stated that he did not see anyone sitting on Bhupat Singh’s bed and did not see 4-5 intruders. However, in his earlier police statement recorded on 30.05.2003 (Ex.D-7), he said one person was sitting on Bhupat Singh’s bed. This change suggests that Pandey altered his version later by mentioning more than one person instead of just one, as previously stated.

¶116

26. Deepak Sharma (PW-12) stated during cross-examination that he submitted complaints to the Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police on 02.06.2003 and 16.06.2003, respectively, and also sent a copy to the State Human Rights Commission.

¶117

¶118

27. If we assume the statements made by Priyajeet Singh, Abhishek Kashyap and Pandey about the number of assailants are untrue, there is still no direct evidence proving whether one or multiple people committed the murder.

¶119

28. Dr. Faizal Firdausi (PW-1), who performed the post-mortem, was asked in cross-examination whether the nature and number of injuries suggested that six people may have inflicted them. The doctor expressed inability to give a definitive opinion.

¶120

29. The trial Court in para 97 of the impugned judgment has observed that based on the above-discussed examination of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, and the conclusions drawn therefrom, it is clear that it cannot be concluded that three accused conspired and planned the murder of deceased Bhupat Singh. Nor can it be concluded that Accused No.3-Mukesh Goswami entered the house of the deceased Bhupat Singh on the night of 29.05.2003 at around 11 P.M. and committed the murder. As a result, Accused No.3-Mukesh Goswami cannot be held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302, or in the alternative, Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC. Similarly, Accused No.2 Vinita Singh cannot be held guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC.

¶121

30. The trial Court in para 98 of its judgment has observed that with regard to the question of whether the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, the above

¶122

¶123

investigation makes it clear that there is no evidence to prove that the accused destroyed any evidence related to the murder of Bhupat Singh or provided any false information related to the crime. Therefore, they cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.

¶124

31. The trial Court also observed that from examination-in-chief of Assistant Sub-Inspector M.S. Chandel (PW-14), it is also evident that on 14.06.2003, he seized a black diary (Article-A3) from the possession of accused Vinita Singh, as per seizure memo Ex.P21. Among other things, the phone number of accused Mukesh Goswami was written in that diary. The available evidence clearly shows that the house of accused Mukesh Goswami is located next to the maternal home of accused No.2 Vinita Singh and he used to visit her house. In such a situation, the mention of his phone number in her diary cannot lead to any adverse inference.

¶125

32. Based on the above analysis and conclusions, the trial Court has acquitted accused/respondent No.1 Lokendra Chaturvedi (now dead) and accused/respondent No.2 Vinita Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 120(B) and Section 201 of the IPC and also accused/respondent No.3 Mukesh Goswami of the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 302, or alternatively under Sections 302, 120(B), and 201 of the IPC.

¶126

33. After appreciating the evidence available on record and considering the circumstantial evidence shown by the

¶127

¶128

prosecution, no option except to acquit the respondents was left to the trial Court.

¶129

34. Upon careful and close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds no compelling reason to take a view different from that taken by learned trial Court. The trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the accused/respondents by its judgment dated 03.10.2006. The incident in question pertains to the year 2003, and the petition seeking leave to appeal against acquittal was filed in the year 2007. Subsequently, leave to appeal was granted on 04.08.2010, and the matter was registered as an acquittal appeal in the year 2010. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1-Lokendra Chaturvedi, has passed away.

¶130

35. Given the fact that more than 22 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 .

¶131

36. 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.

¶132

Sd/- Sd/-

¶133

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

¶134

Bablu

State of Chhattisgarh v. Lokendra Chaturvedi (Deleted)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Lokendra Chaturvedi (Deleted)

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

Dr. Rashmi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akram Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunita Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The state of chhattisgarh Vs Baiju alias Janak Ram

Gokul Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh