State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ku. Reena Nikunj

1

2026:CGHC:417-DB

The date when	The date when	The date	when the
the judgment is reserved	the judgment is pronounced	judgment is the w	uploaded on ebsite
		Operative	Full
---	----	--	07.01.2026

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 294 of 2019

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Ku. Reena Nikunj D/o Shri Madanlal Nikunj Aged About 21 Years R/o Chandani Chowk, Ambikapur, Police StationAmbikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Ku. Neetu Nikunj D/o Shri Madanlal Nikunj Aged About 19 Years R/o Chandani Chowk, Ambikapur, Police StationAmbikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant/State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

¶14

DB : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶16

2

¶17

Judgment on Board (05.01.2026)

¶18

Rajani Dubey, J

¶19

Heard on admission.

¶20

The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.195/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents herein from the charge punishable under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Sonia Gupta, who along with her family was residing as a tenant in the house of father of the accused persons, namely Madanlal Nikunj, situated at Chandni Chowk, Mayapur, Ambikapur, was alleged to have illicit relations with her maternal uncle Sunil Gupta. On account of objection raised by the accused/respondents who are daughters of the landlord Madanlal Nikunj, and due to resentment arising out of the alleged spread of immorality in the neighbourhood, the accused/respondents assaulted deceased Sonia Gupta by hands and fists on 15.05.2008 at about 11:30 a.m. Subsequently, on the same date i.e. 15.05.2008, at about 9:00 p.m., upon the deceased complaining of abdominal pain, her family members admitted her for treatment to the

¶22

3

¶23

District Hospital, Ambikapur, where during the course of treatment she succumbed to her injuries on 16.05.2008 at about 3:00 a.m. The information of admission of deceased was given vide Ex.P-6.

¶24

On 16.05.2008, Ward Boy Bajar Ram (PW-09) of District Hospital, Ambikapur, went to Police Station Ambikapur and intimated about the death of Sonia Gupta vide Ex.P-5, pursuant to which merg intimation Ex.P-4 was recorded. Thereafter, notices were issued to the witnesses vide Ex.P01, and the inquest proceedings of the dead body of Sonia Gupta were conducted and Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-02. After preparing inquest proceeding, dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to District Hospital, Ambikapur vide Ex.P-07, where Dr. J.K. Relwani (PW-8) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-16, opining the cause of death of deceased to be shock by extensive internal hemorrhage leading to cardio respiratory arrest.

¶25

During the course of merg inquiry, statements of witnesses Pappulal Gupta (PW-05), Suman Devi Gupta (PW-04), Amit Gupta (PW-03), Rajmuni (PW-06) and Sunil Gupta were recorded as per their versions, and the spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-09. After completing due investigation, charge under Section 304/34 of IPC was filed against the accused/respondents before the jurisdictional Court

¶26

4

¶27

followed by charge under Section 304/34 of IPC. The accused/respondents however denied the charge and pleaded for trial.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements 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. One defence witness namely Dr. Snehlata Kujur (DW-1) was also examined in the case.

¶29

The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondents of the charge under Section 304/34m of IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State.

¶30

Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/appellant submits that the judgment, findings and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse, and are liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge has gravely erred in acquitting the accused/respondents despite there being sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective and has

¶31

5

¶32

discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses on trivial omissions and minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case. The approach adopted by the learned Trial Court is contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, as the circumstances proved by the prosecution form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused/respondents, and such circumstances cannot be ignored merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel also submits that the conduct of the accused/respondents, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, clearly establishes their culpable intention. The learned Trial Judge has committed a manifest error of law in disbelieving reliable prosecution evidence. It has been also submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the settled legal position that minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses cannot form the sole basis for acquittal. The prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the order of acquittal is unjust, improper and bad in law, and therefore deserves to be interfered with.

¶33

None appears for respondents.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the

¶36

6

¶37

learned Trial court framed charges under Section 304/34 of the IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the said charges.

¶38

Dr. J.K. Relwani (PW-8) conducted the postmortem of the deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-16 opining that the death of deceased was due to excessive internal bleeding. The autopsy surgeon in his query report (Ex.P17), answered that it is possible that the deceased died within 24 hours due to internal bleeding caused by the rupture of the uterus and placenta as a result of the assault and no external injury was noticed on the body of deceased.

¶39

Amrit Lal Gupta (PW-1), Rajendra Kumar Gupta (PW-2), Amit Gupta (PW-3), Suman Devi Gupta (PW-4), Pappulal Gupta (PW-5), who are uncle, brother, mother and father of the deceased respectively, have stated that both the accused/respondents assaulted the deceased but they have admitted the suggestion of defence that they were not eye witnesses to the incident.

¶40

Rajmuni (PW-6) is the neighbour of the deceased. She has stated that on the date of incident at around 11 AM -12 PM, she came to her house after bath. After hearing the sound of quarrel, she came out of the house and saw that Sunil Gupta, uncle of the deceased, and Yogesh @ Bittu were quarreling. The quarrel between Sunil Gupta and Yogesh

¶41

7

¶42

was intervened by neighbours and pacified the quarrel. She has also stated that on the very day at night, the parents of deceased Soniya was abusing her and on the same day deceased was taken to hospital and in the morning she came to know that deceased died during the course of the treatment.

¶43

All the witnesses have admitted this suggestion that the deceased was unmarried. The defence of accused/respondents is that the deceased was unmarried and she got pregnant before marriage and the parents of deceased have assaulted her.

¶44

It is clear from the evidence of Dr. J.K. Relwani (PW-8) that the deceased died due to excessive internal bleeding caused by rupture of the uterus and placenta, and though the autopsy surgeon opined that such rupture could be possible due to assault, admittedly no external injury was found on the body of the deceased as is evident from his query report. The said medical opinion, by itself, does not conclusively connect the accused/respondents with the alleged act of assault. Further, the prosecution witnesses Amrit Lal Gupta (PW-1), Rajendra Kumar Gupta (PW-2), Amit Gupta (PW-3), Suman Devi Gupta (PW-4) and Pappulal Gupta (PW-5), who are close relatives of the deceased, have categorically admitted that they were not eye-witnesses to the incident. Their evidence is thus

¶45

8

¶46

hearsay in nature and does not directly implicate the accused/respondents. The sole independent witness, Rajmuni (PW-6), has only stated about a quarrel between Sunil Gupta and Yogesh @ Bittu during daytime, which was intervened and pacified by neighbours. She has not stated that the deceased was assaulted by the accused/respondents, nor has she witnessed any act which could be linked to the cause of death. It has also come on record that the deceased was unmarried. The defence version that the deceased had become pregnant prior to marriage and was assaulted by her own parents cannot be ruled out in the absence of cogent, consistent and reliable evidence.

¶47

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:-

¶48

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:-

¶49

"(I) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--

¶50

9

¶51

inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

¶52

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

¶53

(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;

¶54

(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;

¶55

(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 Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶56

(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."

¶57

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 304/34 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.

¶58

10

¶59

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.

¶60

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself.

¶61

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶62

Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAOpekde PEKDE Date: 2026.01.07 16:59:35 +0530

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ku. Reena Nikunj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ku. Reena Nikunj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Trilochan

Shivnandan Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Shrilal Dhurvey