State of Chhattisgarh Vs Somaru Nageshiya @ Ranglal Nageshiya

Somaru Nageshiya @ Ranglal Nageshiya S/o Kango Nageshiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Podi Khurd, Police Station- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

(11^th March, 2026)

¶16

Per Rajani Dubey, J

¶17

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 29.8.2018 passed by the II Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-

¶18

2

¶19

Ramanujganj in ST No.R-76/2015 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 302 of IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.6.2015 PW-1 Kango, husband of the deceased Sukhni Bai, lodged a merg intimation that he resides with his wife Sukhni Bai and younger son Somaru @ Ranglal, who is habitual to consuming liquor and always raise quarrel over demand of money for liquor. On 18.6.2015 at around 2 am when Sukhni Bai was all alone in the house, his son Somaru (accused) on account of ill-will with her mother as she used to give entire money to her daughter Bhini Bai after selling goats, assaulted her with club on her head, left temporal region, left eye and right elbow and thereby caused his death. Based on this information, the police commenced investigation, prepared spot map, conducted postmortem of the deceased after preparing inquest memo, recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing usual investigation, filed charge sheet u/s 302 of IPC before the JMFC, Rajpur against the accused followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial Court which was abjured by him and he prayed for trial.

¶21

To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and

¶22

3

¶23

false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge u/s 302 of IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses where it has come that the accused used to frequently quarrel with the deceased and his father over demand of money for consuming liquor and sometime he also ousted them from the house. As such, the accused had a strong motive for commission of the crime in question. He submits that learned trial Court ought to have seen that on the memorandum of the accused, the weapon of offence club was seized and PW-8 Bhola Yadav, witness to memorandum and seizure, has duly supported the prosecution case. Learned trial Court has committed an illegality by giving too much weightage to minor and irrelevant contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses whereas looking to the overall evidence and conduct of the accused, it is crystal clear that it is the accused who committed murder of his mother by assaulting her with club on her vital parts. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and

¶26

4

¶27

the respondent/accused be held guilty u/s 302 of IPC and sentenced accordingly.

¶28

None appears for the respondent though served.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the material available on record.

¶30

It is clear from the record of learned trial court that accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court acquitted him of the said charge on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt.

¶31

It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that deceased Sukhni Bai was mother of the accused Somaru who died on the midnight of 18^th and 19^th June, 2015 at her house.

¶32

PW-10 Dr. Shashikala Toppo conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and found as many as five injuries on the body. She opined that cause of death is shock due to extradural hemorrhage due to head injury. However, regarding nature of death, the doctor suggested to go for circumstantial evidence vide her report Ex.P/11. In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased including the head injury could be caused due to fall. It is thus clear that no definite opinion regarding nature of death has been given by the autopsy surgeon.

¶33

5

¶34

PW-1 Kango, husband of the deceased and father of accused states that on the date of incident he was not at the house and had gone out of the village. Having received information he returned and found dead body of his wife lying in the kitchen garden of the house with head injury. The prosecution declared him hostile and crossexamined where he admitted that the accused committed murder of Sukhni Bai by assaulting her with club and he reported the matter to the police. However, he also admits suggestion of the defence that he did not witness the incident and admits that he does not know as to how she died. He volunteers that at the time of incident he was not present. He admits that his daughter Bhini did not tell him anything about the incident. He also admits that he did not disclose the name of any one while lodging report at Police Station – Shankargarh. He admits that he did not tell the police that it is the accused who killed Sukhni Bai.

¶35

PW-2 Bhini Bai, daughter of the deceased and sister of the accused, states that on the date of incident at around 3 am the accused beat her and drove her away from the house, so she was at the house of her brother Navasai. She states that the accused assaulted with axe on the head of her mother Sukhni Bai and killed her. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined where she admitted that the accused killed Sukhni Bai by assaulting her with club as Sukhni Bai used to give her the entire money after selling goats. In

¶36

6

¶37

cross-examination by the defence she admits that the accused never quarreled with her mother over her giving money to her after selling goats. She admits that at the time of giving statement to police she did not disclose that the accused killed Sukhni Bai by assaulting her with club. She volunteers that though she wanted to tell the same, but the police would scold her.

¶38

PW-3 Haura @ Mansai, PW-4 Sonsai and PW-5 MohanYadav did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The prosecution cross-examined them where they denied all the suggestions including their police statements. PW-6 Kanti was also declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution where she admitted that the accused killed Sukhni Bai by hitting her with club. However, in cross-examination by the defence she admits that she does not know as to how Sukhni died. She even denied her police statement. PW-7 Mohar Yadav, witness to memorandum Ex.P/8 and seizure Ex.P/9, has not supported the prosecution case at all and has been declared hostile. He only admitted his signature on these documents.

¶39

PW-8 Bhola Yadav, another witness to memorandum and seizure, stated that at the instance of accused the police seized a club and iron rod. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he admitted that on the disclosure statement of the accused, club and his bloodstained T-shirt were seized. However, in cross-

¶40

7

¶41

examination by the defence he again stated that the police seized iron rod before him. From the memorandum of the accused, it is clear that the accused stated therein about assault with club and not iron rod.

¶42

Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that there is no direct evidence in this case to prove complicity of the accused in the crime in question. As per memorandum of the accused, he stated about assault with club but the police seized iron rod too as admitted by PW-8 Bhola Yadav whereas according to daughter of the deceased Bhini Bai, the accused killed the deceased by assaulting her with axe. The autopsy surgeon Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-10) has not opined regarding nature of death and rather admitted the suggestion of the defence that all injuries including head injury sustained by the deceased could be caused due to fall on hard object. No FSL report is there on record.

¶43

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 42 as under:-

¶44

“42. 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:-

¶45

“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a

¶46

8

¶47

criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

¶48

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶49

(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;

¶50

(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;

¶51

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶52

(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.”

¶53

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, in the present case, we find that the prosecution case is based on weak and inconsistent evidence. The material witnesses have either turned hostile or made significant improvements and contradictions. The medical evidence does not conclusively establish homicidal death, and the recovery of the weapon is also doubtful. I n such circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt appears to be a possible and plausible view

¶54

9

¶55

based on the evidence available on record. Being so, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is

¶56

hereby dismissed.

¶57

Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶58

Digitally signed MOHD by MOHDAKHTAR KHAN AKHTAR Date: KHAN 2026.03.1215:15:17 +0530

¶59

Khan

State of Chhattisgarh v. Somaru Nageshiya @ Ranglal Nageshiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Somaru Nageshiya @ Ranglal Nageshiya

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

X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gore Lal Kashyap Vs Sindhu @ Tarachand and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Sindhu @ Tarachand

Rajesh Kumar Lahre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and another

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramchander

Lalita Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh