State of Chhattisgarh Vs Nitin Limbu @ Munku Nepali

2 - Dinesh Maheshwari @ Golu Marwadi S/o Late Jagdish Aged About 37 Years R/o Kilapara, Near Durga Mandir, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandngaon C.G.

¶12

3 - Megha Tiwari S/o Alok Tiwari Aged About 24 Years R/o Suncity, Shrishti Colony, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Applicant : Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents : Mr.Pranav Tiwari, Advocate No.1 and 2 For Respondent : Mr.Akash Shrivastava, Advocate No.3

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

2

9.1.2026

1. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State as well as Mr.Pranav Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr.Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 on I.A.No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal.

¶20

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶21

3. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for grant of leave to appeal.

¶22

4. It has been argued by learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court is nevertheless vested with wide powers to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It is a settled position of law that where such reappreciation reveals that the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is unjust, perverse or contrary to evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to set aside the acquittal and record a conviction in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the respondents/accused from the offences charged, despite overwhelming oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution. He further submits that the peculiar

¶23

3

¶24

facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the conduct of the respondents, clearly establish their ill-intention. The evidence on record unmistakably points towards the intention of the accused / respondents to commit the offence, which the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased were grievous and fatal in nature and were caused with clear intention to kill. The offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and allied provisions was clearly made out. He also submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal position under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which permits consideration of a proved confession made by one accused affecting himself and other coaccused persons jointly tried for the same offence. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that offences under Sections 302/34, 201, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act were clearly established through cogent and reliable evidence. He contended that the learned Trial Court erroneously brushed aside the recovery of the weapon of offence made from the possession of the accused / respondents pursuant to their memorandum statements, despite it being duly proved in accordance with law. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court are unjust, improper, perverse, and bad in law, warranting interference by this Court. As such, the application for leave to appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶25

5. We have perused the photocopies of records of the trial Court.

¶26

4

¶27

6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned State Counsel and also perusing the records of the trial Court, we allow the application for leave to appeal under Section 419(3) of the BNSS.

¶28

7. Office is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”.

¶29

8. The CrMP is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

9. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted.

¶31

10. Summon the record of the trial Court.

¶32

11. The paper book shall be prepared in accordance with the High Court Rules and shall be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents on or before 13.02.2026.

¶33

12. The respondents have already put in appearance. They are directed to furnish the bail bonds with sureties before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and the trial Court shall send the same to this Court.

¶34

13. List the acquittal appeal for final disposal on 13.02.2026 .

¶35

Sd/- Sd/-

¶36

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶37

Bablu

State of Chhattisgarh v. Nitin Limbu @ Munku Nepali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Nitin Limbu @ Munku Nepali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piyush Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devlal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shaktipal @ Shani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanai Uraon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmanand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surit Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh