The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhagwat Yadav

The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State/appellant herein against the judgment dated 17.11.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.44/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents herein of the charge under Section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.09.2016 at about 08:00–08:30 a.m., the Station House Officer Pradeep Kumar Sori, received telephonic information from Assistant Sub-Inspector Dwarka Deshlahre, In-charge of Police Chowki Damapur, Police Station Kunda, that one Shivarani Bai (since deceased) of village Sukli Govind had died under suspicious circumstances. Upon receipt of the said information, Inspector Pradeep Kumar Sori reached village Sukli Govind, where on 25.09.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., informant/complainant Sahbeen Bai lodged a Dehati Merg intimation (Ex.P-11) to the effect that her deceased daughter Shivarani was married two years prior to the incident to accused/respondent No.1- Bhagwat Yadav, son of Shatruhan Yadav, accused/respondent No.2, resident of village Sukli Govind. It was further stated that her son-in-law

¶22

3

¶23

Bhagwat Yadav (accused/respondent No.1) and his father Shatruhan Yadav (accused/respondent No.2) herein were habitual drunkers and, under the influence of liquor, used to frequently assault her daughter. Bhagwat Yadav used to suspect the character of Shivarani and used to beat her. During the Teej festival of the said year, Shivarani had come to her maternal home at Sarangpur, and Bhagwat Yadav had also come there, where he assaulted Shivarani in her house itself. Shivarani had told her mother that her husband Bhagwat Yadav and father-in-law Shatruhan Yadav used to regularly assault her on suspicion of her character. On 25.09.2016 at about 03:00 a.m., Bhagwat Yadav informed complainant that Shivarani’s condition was very serious. Thereafter, the complainant, along with her brother Tulsiram, her son Shribhajan, and a relative Panchram, reached village Sukli Govind at about 06:00 a.m., where she saw that the dead body of her daughter Shivarani was lying in a supine condition in the veranda of her matrimonial house. Blood and froth were coming out of her nose. There were no visible external injuries on the body; however, marks of strangulation were visible near her neck. From these circumstances, the complainant suspected that her daughter Shivarani had been murdered by her husband Bhagwat Yadav and father-in-law Shatruhan Yadav by strangulation due to suspicion over her character. It was

¶24

4

¶25

further stated that the silver anklets worn by Shivarani were removed and kept aside. Further case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2016, during the merg inquiry, Inspector Pradeep Sori issued notices (Ex.P-12) to the witnesses for conducting inquest proceedings over the dead body of Shivarani Bai lying in the veranda of her house. Thereafter, in the presence of witnesses, the inquest on the body of deceased and spot map (Ex.P-13) were prepared. Subsequently, an application for post-mortem examination (Ex.P-14) was prepared, and the dead body was sent to Community Health Centre, Pandariya, where on 25.09.2016, Dr. P.L. Kurre (PW-8) conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased Shivarani Yadav and gave his report (Ex.P-10), opining that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

¶26

On 25.09.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., on the basis of the merg intimation, informant Sahbeen Bai (PW-1) lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-15) at village Sukli Govind. On the said report, Inspector Pradeep Kumar Sori (PW-9) registered a case against accused/respondents Bhagwat Yadav and Shatruhan Yadav for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. During investigation, on 25.09.2016, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map (Ex.P-16). Thereafter, on the same day at about 07:10 p.m., a

¶27

5

¶28

numbered merg intimation No.16/16 (Ex.P-17) was recorded, and at about 07:20 p.m., on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-15), the First Information Report (Ex.P-18) was registered, bearing Crime No.139/16 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. During investigation, on 26.09.2016, accused Bhagwat Yadav was taken into custody, and at about 11:00 a.m., his memorandum statement (Ex.P-04) was recorded at Police Station Kunda. In his memorandum, accused Bhagwat stated that he and his father accused/respondent No.2 Shatruhan had jointly strangulated Shivarani to death and had removed silver anklets worn by her and kept them with his father Shatruhan. Pursuant thereto, at about 12:00 noon, accused Shatruhan Yadav produced one pair of silver anklets from his house in the presence of witnesses, which were seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo (Ex.P-05). Thereafter, both accused Bhagwat Yadav and Shatruhan Yadav were arrested, vide Ex.P-07 and P-06 respectively.

¶29

Further, on 03.10.2016, the Investigating Officer sent an application (Ex.P-21) to the Naib Tahsildar, Kunda, for conducting identification proceedings of the seized silver anklets. On 04.10.2016, Patwari Ajay Kumar Gedam (PW-4) prepared the spot map (Ex.P-02). On 18.10.2016, Hemant Kumar, Naib Tahsildar (PW-10) and Executive Magistrate, Kunda, conducted the identification proceedings at the Sub-

¶30

6

¶31

Tahsildar Office, Kunda, wherein complainant Sahbeen Bai identified one pair of silver anklets out of three pairs as belonging to her deceased daughter Shivarani, and identification panchnama (Ex.P-22) was prepared.

¶32

During investigation, statements of witnesses Sahbeen Bai (PW-1), Shribhajan, Tulsiram Yadav (PW-3), Panchram (PW-11), Niranjan Satnami, Salikram (PW-5), Jaleshwar Yadav (PW-2), Parmeshwar (PW-7), and Rajesh Banjare (PW-6) were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶33

After completing due investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC was filed against the accused/respondents before the jurisdictional Court followed by charge under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The accused/respondents however denied the charge and pleaded for trial.

¶34

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime.

¶35

The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the

¶36

7

¶37

accused/respondents of the charge under Sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State.

¶38

Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court was not justified in holding the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature solely on the basis of the post-mortem report (Ex.P-10) issued by the Medical Officer, Dr. P.L. Kurre (P.W.-8), without properly appreciating the totality of the oral and circumstantial evidence available on record. The counsel contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of complainant Sahbeen Bai (P.W.1), who categorically supported the prosecution case and clearly deposed that the accused/respondents suspected the character of the deceased and, on account of such suspicion, committed her murder by pressing her neck. According to the prosecution, the said testimony was consistent, natural, and trustworthy and ought to have been relied upon. It was also submitted that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt by leading cogent oral, documentary, and medical evidence, and that the learned trial Court erred in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the learned trial Court committed an error in law by attaching undue

¶39

8

¶40

importance to minor omissions and trivial contradictions appearing in the prosecution evidence, which did not go to the root of the case and were insufficient to discredit the otherwise reliable prosecution version. It was submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court was improper, unjust, and unsustainable in law, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶41

No one appeared on behalf of the accused/respondents.

¶42

We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶43

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the said the charges.

¶44

It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that deceased Shivrani Bai was wife of accused/respondent No.1 – Bhagwat Yadav, and daughter-in-law of of accused/respondent No.2. – Shatruhan Yadav. It is also not disputed that in the night intervening 24-25.09.2016, deceased died and her dead body was found in supine condition in the open varandah of her house.

¶45

Dr. P.L. Kurre (P.W.-8), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, submitted his

¶46

9

¶47

report (Ex.P-10) opining that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and that the death was homicidal in nature. The defence subjected this witness to extensive cross-examination; however, nothing material could be elicited so as to discredit his testimony or to suggest that the death of the deceased was other than homicidal. The learned trial Court, upon due appreciation of the medical evidence adduced by Dr. P.L. Kurre (P.W.-8), has rightly recorded a finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶48

As regards the occurrence itself, the prosecution case is that accused/respondent No.1, Bhagwat Yadav, caused the death of his wife deceased Shivrani Bai, and accused/respondent No.2, Shatruhan Yadav, assisted him by holding her legs. In order to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence, the prosecution relied upon the memorandum statement (Ex.P-4) of accused/respondent No.1 Bhagwat Yadav, pursuant to which silver anklets were allegedly recovered from accused/respondent No.2 Shatruhan Yadav, vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). Except for the said recovery, no other clinching or legally admissible evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime.

¶49

Significantly, the material prosecution witnesses, namely,

¶50

10

¶51

Smt. Sahbin Bai (P.W.-1), Jaleshwar (P.W.-2), Tulasram (P.W.-3), Ajay Kumar Gedam (P.W.-4), and Salik Ram (P.W.5), have admitted during their respective depositions the defence suggestion that the veranda of the house of the accused, where the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a supine condition, was not enclosed by any boundary wall and was open and accessible to the public. In view of such admissions, the place of occurrence cannot be said to have been within the exclusive control of the accused persons. Consequently, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted in the facts of the present case. Further, as per the memorandum statement, only silver anklets were seized from the house of accused/respondent No.2 Shatruhan Yadav, who is the father-in-law of the deceased and was admittedly residing in a common household. In the aforesaid circumstances, the mere recovery of silver anklets from a shared residential premises, without independent corroboration, does not conclusively link the seized article with the commission of the offence. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt as to how the said recovery incriminates the accused persons or forms a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards their guilt. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law or fact while acquitting the accused/respondents of the

¶52

11

¶53

charges under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The judgment of acquittal is based on a proper evaluation of evidence and does not suffer from perversity or misapplication of legal principles.

¶54

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka , has held in para 36 as under:-

¶55

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

¶56

"(I) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

¶57

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

¶58

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial

¶59

12

¶60

Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

¶61

Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondents of the charge under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.

¶62

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The

¶63

13

¶64

judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed, and the acquittal appeal stands dismissed.

¶65

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶66

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶67

Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDEpekde Date: 2026.01.16 17:18:09 +0530

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhagwat Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhagwat Yadav

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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mangat Ram Jangade

Pramod Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Chitranjan Patel @ Santu

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Yogesh Kumar Baghel

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rakesh Kumar Sarthi