Dismissed¶61

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jaisingh Bariha

ACQUITTAL APPEAL DISMISSED – Murder (Sections 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC)

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2026ACQA/307/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (DB: Rajani Dubey & Radhakishan Agarwal JJ.), 12.01.2026, 2026:CGHC:1533-DB, ACQA No. 307 of 2018: State's acquittal appeal under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC dismissed; acquittal of three accused upheld — homicidal death but no last-seen evidence, no clinching proof, trial court's view plausible; Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (SC, 12.02.2024) applied on the plausibility/no-interference standard; respondents unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

The death of the deceased Milakram was homicidal in nature, and the learned trial Court rightly so found. ¶41

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jaisingh Bariha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts (perverse) and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and possible view; in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The death of the deceased Milakram was homicidal in nature, and the learned trial Court rightly so found.

¶41

Key takeaways

No last-seen evidence was proved by the prosecution; only the memorandum and seizure witnesses were examined.ratio¶41
There was no legally admissible and clinching evidence proved by the prosecution against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt.ratio¶49
The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, giving the accused the benefit of doubt.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQUITTAL APPEAL DISMISSED — Murder (Sections 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC) — State's appeal against acquittal dated 06.12.2017 by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No. 60/2016 of three accused (Jaisingh Bariha, Ishwar Jagat, Santu @ Santram Sidar) for the death of Milakram, whose body was found in a drain tied with stone and iron wire. Held (Rajani Dubey, J.): the death was homicidal, but the prosecution proved no last-seen evidence and examined only the memorandum and seizure witnesses; there was no legally admissible and clinching evidence beyond reasonable doubt; the trial court minutely appreciated the evidence and its view was plausible and possible. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162 of 2011, decided 12.02.2024) — reversal of acquittal requires demonstrated illegality, perversity or error — no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. None appeared for the respondents.

¶1

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

2026:CGHC:1533-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 307 of 2018

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Gidhouri, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Jaisingh Bariha S/o Shri Mangluram Bariha Aged About 37 Years R/o VillageSaraipali, Chowki- Giroudpuri, Police Station- Gidhouri, Distt. BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Ishwar Jagat S/o Shri Firatram Jagat Aged About 39 Years R/o VillageSaraipali, Chowki- Giroudpuri, Police Station- Gidhouri, Distt. BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Santu @ Santram Sidar S/o- Ghurau Sidar Aged About 26 Years R/o VillageSaraipali, Chowki- Giroudpuri, Police Station- Gidhouri, Distt. BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

.... Respondents

¶14

For State/Appellant : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agarwal, J.

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per, Rajani Dubey, J.

¶17

12.01.2026

¶18

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar (C.G.) in

¶19

¶20

Sessions Trial No. 60/2016, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 and 201 of IPC.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that on 26/07/2016, Laxman Kanwar, along with Parasram Patreshwar, Rathkumar Diwan, and Kotwar Jansingh, appeared at Police Outpost- Giraudpuri and lodged a morgue intimation, stating that his son, Milakram, lived with his wife- Malti. Malti had gone to her brother's house. His son, Milakram, had not been at home since 23/07/2016. Upon searching on 26/07/2016, his body was found in a drain, presumed to have drowned. Based on the information given by the deceased's father, Laxman Kanwar, morgue intimation No. 0/16 was registered vide Ex. P/3 and FIR was registered at Police Station- Gidhauri under Crime No. 120/16 for offence under sections 302, 201, and 34 of IPC. A panchnama was prepared for the deceased's body and a postmortem examination was conducted. A spot map was prepared. During the investigation, the accused Jaisingh, Ishwar Jagat and Santu alias Santram were taken into custody and a memorandum of their statements was recorded. Based on the information provided by them, bamboo, torch, slipper, wire and mobile phones were seized. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of charges punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of IPC, against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct prospective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondents, but despite the same the accused respondents have been acquitted. He further submits that the death of the deceased i.e., Milakram is homicidal in nature and the same has been proved from Ex. P/38 i.e. postmortem report and Dr. M. Nirala [PW-12] has opined that the deceased has died either due to drowning and strangulation cannot be ruled out. It has also come to light that in order to conceal the body of the deceased, the neck & legs of the deceased was fastened with stone with the help of iron wire and the body was thrown into the water and the iron wire was also seized from the respondents/accused as per their memorandum statements and the deceased often used to wander with the respondents/accused, but the trial court utterly failed to consider the aforesaid facts. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside.

¶24

¶25

None present for the respondents, despite service of notice.

¶26

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

¶27

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 201 of IPC against the accused/respondents and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges.

¶28

¶29

PW-2 Laxman, father of the deceased stated that the deceased was his son and his son’s house is 100 meters away from his house and on that day his daughter-in-law- Malti, had gone to Village- Chhatvan and his son Milakram was at home. After two or three days, his daughterin-law left for Chhatvan, he went to his son's house and found the door locked. He asked people around about his son and they told him that he had not been seen at home. He then called his daughter-in-lawMalti, who told him that his son had not come to her. After that, he searched for his son in the surrounding villages and his son was later found in the water of the Gudadarha drain, his body tied with a stone. He reported his son's death to the Police Station- Giraud and Police arrived at the spot and prepared an inquest report. He saw the body and the body was tied with iron wire and a stone. The body's legs were also tied and the body was rotten and decayed. Morgue was lodged vide Ex. P/3, notice were issued to the witness for inquest vide Ex. P/4, inquest report was prepared vide Ex. P/5, Identification Memo was prepared vide Ex. P/6 and spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/7. He stated that in all documents, he put his thumb impressions. In para 4 he stated that when his son was alive, he used to hang out with the accused and he suspect that Jaisingh, Santu and Ishwar murdered his son. In his cross-examination, he stated that before his son went missing, he had never seen him hanging out with the three accused.

¶30

PW-3, Motilal Kanwar, brother of the deceased has also stated same story and alleged that deceased was used to hang out with Jaisingh, Ishwar, and Santram. The document relating to the removal of the body from the drain is Ex. P/10 and he admitted his signature on A to A part and he identified his brother’s body, identification memo is Ex. P/11, where he also admitted his signature on A to A part. In his cross-

¶31

¶32

examination, he admitted the suggestion of defence that they did not file a missing report to police station before Milakram's body was found; they did so after it was found. Milakram's body was found four or five days after his disappearance.

¶33

PW-4 Malti Bai, wife of the deceased has also stated that all three accused persons are childhood friends of her husband. They used to hang out, eat and drink with her husband and stated that they murdered her husband. She further stated that her husband’s body was tied with stones and wire and the accused confessed at the police station that they had murdered Milakram. In her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion of defence that she did not see the accused with her husband on the day he was missing and further stated that the accused helped for searching of her husband, when he was missing.

¶34

PW-12 Dr. M. Nirala has conducted the postmorem of the deceased and he opined in his report (Ex. P/38) as under:-

¶35

As body was putrefected, so we can not opine about cause of death at this stage.

¶36

Viscera report and diatom examination report is necessary. 3. Death was due to drowning and strangulation can not be ruled out.

¶37

Duration of death within 3-5 days prior to postmortem examination.

¶38

As per diatom test report, article bone is found negative and as per viscera test report i.e., Articles A, B and C, no specific poison, drugs or other toxic chemicals were found in the internal organs of the deceased.

¶39

The learned trial Court stated that the cause of the death is homicidal in nature after looking to the decomposed state of body of the

¶40

¶41

deceased as his neck was surrounded by the iron wire. Thus, learned trial Court rightly finds that death of the deceased Milakram was homicidal in nature, but it is clear from the material available on record that in this case no last seen evidence proved by the prosecution and only the memorandum and seizure witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

¶42

PW-5 Anand Sahu and PW-7 Ram Kumar Pareshwar have only admitted their signatures on memorandum statements (Ex. P/13, Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/15) of the accused persons Jaisingh, Ishwar and Santu and in seizure memo of the accused Jaisingh i.e., Ex.P/16 to Ex. Ex. P/19 and in seizure memo of the accused Ishwar and Santu i.e., Ex. P/20 and Ex. P/21 on A to A part and B to B part respectively.

¶43

As per memorandum statement (Ex. P/13) of the accused Jaisingh, he disclosed the wire, slipper, bamboo and torch, as per memorandum statement (Ex. P/14) of the accused Ishwar Jagat, he disclosed about the mobile phone and as per memorandum statement (Ex. P/15) of the accused Santu @ Santram, he also disclosed about the mobile phone.

¶44

As per seizure memo Ex. P/16, one bamboo and one black-red coloured ONLITE China company’s torch were seized from the accused Jaisingh. As per seizure memo Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18, bundle of the iron wires were seized and as per seizure memo Ex. P/19, one pair of paragon plastic slipper was also seized from the accused Jaisingh.

¶45

As per seizure memo (Ex. P/20) of the accused Ishwar Jagat, one Black coloured mobile phone of Lava company was seized and also one White- Green coloured mobile phone of the Lava company was seized from the accused Santram vide Ex. P/21.

¶46

¶47

Search memo is Ex. P/22, relevant part of the same is reproduced herein as under:-

¶48

वि��रण :- “ इस्ቚ कारहैकीमृतकविमलकरामकँ�रकाघटनाकेसमयपहनेहुए हरेशट�तथाछि�ट�ालालूंहगीकोआरोपीजयिሺसगबरिरहाविनकलकरअपनेघर लायाथाशट�ए�ंलूंहगीकातलाशइसकेघरमेंग�ाहोंकेसम्ቌ माकनमालिलकके उपቜኌ0तछिथमेंकीगई I तलाशीपरमृतकविमलकराम काहरारंगकाशट�तथा लूंहगीनहींविमलाहै I आरोपीजयिሺसगके्ቛ ाराउ्ሹ शट�ए�ंलूंहगीकोघटना वि5नाककीरावि6 कोअपनेघरकेचूल्हामेंजला5ेनाबतायाहैचूल्हामेंलिलपाई पुताईहोगयाविकसी्ቚ कारकीकोईराखनहींविमला। "

¶49

It is clear that no recovery was made as per seizure memo of all the accused persons, which indicate their guilt in this crime and both memorandum and seizure witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case, though, it is clear that there is no legally admissible and clinching evidence proved by the prosecution against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused, as such by giving them benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents.

¶50

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

¶51

“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:-

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

(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;

¶57

(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;

¶58

(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;

¶59

(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.”

¶60

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶61

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby

¶62

dismissed.

¶63

Sd/Sd/-

¶64

(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶65

AMIT

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jaisingh Bariha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jaisingh Bariha

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 Yugraj Nayak

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Chandra

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohan Lal Nishad

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Painta @ Radheshyam

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Abhijeet Das Gupta

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Khatbun Nisha