Dismissed¶58

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kalindar Ram

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2026CRMP/977/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRMP 977 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, order 08.04.2026 (Ramesh Sinha CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J): leave to appeal against acquittal in S.T. No.25/2025 (BNS 2023 Ss.103(1), 238, 3(5); deceased Chudru Ram; Jisfari Dam; accused Kalindar, Mahindar, Dharmu Ram) refused; 8-day delay condoned; circumstantial-evidence chain incomplete, hostile PWs 02-04, no blood on sarei danda per FSL; State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, relied on for limited scope of interference with acquittal.

What did the court decide?

None; leave to appeal was refused and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was rejected, leaving the acquittal undisturbed. ¶58

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kalindar Ram — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; leave to appeal was refused and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was rejected, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2025 passed in Session Trial No.25 of 2025. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

Upon reappraisal of the record, this Court finds no substantial and compelling reason to grant leave to appeal against the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Sufficient cause having been shown, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of 08 days in filing the instant petition is condoned.

¶23

Key takeaways

Interference with an order of acquittal is not warranted unless the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are manifestly erroneous or wholly unsustainable; merely because another view is possible is no ground to grant leave.ratio¶56
The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated so as to persuade this Court to take a different view.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (Bilaspur), CRMP No. 977 of 2026 (DB), order dated 08.04.2026 per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. (with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.). State's application for leave to appeal against acquittal dated 09.12.2025 in Session Trial No.25 of 2025 (Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur) of three accused charged under Sections 103(1), 238 read with Section 3(5) BNS, 2023 for the murder of Chudru Ram, whose body was recovered from Jisfari Dam with stones tied by cloth. Eight-day delay in filing condoned (I.A. No.01 allowed). Trial Court had accepted homicidal death by asphyxia due to strangulation (PW-09 Dr. Roshan Bariyar) but found the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete: no eyewitness; PW-02 Bhimram, PW-03 Sadhuram and PW-04 Chandrashekhar turned hostile on identification of the gamcha; memorandum statements and recovery of the sarei danda uncorroborated; forensic report showed no human blood on the alleged weapon. Relying on State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 (scope of interference with acquittal very limited; interference only where view impossible or perverse), the Division Bench held the trial Court's findings a plausible and reasonable view and rejected the petition for leave to appeal.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15936-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.04.09 10:23:32 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

CRMP No. 977 of 2026

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Manora Police Station And District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Kalindar Ram S/o Bipta Ram Aged About 27 Years Caste- Korwa R/o Village- Tiltangar Chowki Manora Police Station And DistrictJashpur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Mahindar Ram S/o Bipta Ram Aged About 23 Years Caste- Korwa R/o Village Tiltangar Chowki Manora Police Station And DistrictJashpur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Dharmu Ram S/o Late Somra Ram Aged About 24 Years CasteKorwa R/o Village Tiltangar Chowki Manora Police Station And DistrictJashpur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate

¶16

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

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

08.04.2026

¶20

1. Heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application

¶21

for condonation of delay of 08 days in filing the instant petition.

¶22

¶23

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 08 days in filing the instant petition is condoned.

¶24

3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2025 passed in Session Trial No.25 of 2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

¶25

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.12.2024, information was received by the Kotwar, namely Prem Prakash Ram, from Village Kanta, Police Outpost Manora, that an unidentified dead body was lying in the water of Jisfari Dam and foul smell was emanating therefrom. Upon such information, intimation was given to the police outpost, and a merg intimation was recorded. During the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that on 14.12.2024, two villagers, namely Prakash and Kartik, had gone to the said dam for grazing cattle. In the evening, while attempting to give water to the cattle, they sensed a foul smell and upon approaching the dam, noticed an unidentified dead body floating near the edge of dam. They returned to the village, informed Sarpanch, who

¶26

¶27

along with them visited the spot and confirmed the presence of the dead body. On the next day i.e., 15.12.2024, again upon inspection, it was found that the dead body was lying in the water with stones tied around the neck and waist by means of cloth, indicating that the deceased had been murdered and the body had been disposed of in the dam to conceal the offence. Accordingly, merg intimation was registered and during inquiry, the offence under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS, 2023 was found to be made out, whereupon Dehati Nalishi was recorded and investigation was taken up.

¶28

5. During investigation, the dead body was taken out from the water and upon close inspection, injuries were found on the head, forehead, jaw and ears, and the skin of the body was found peeled off. Stones tied with cloth around the neck and waist were also noticed. The stones were seized in presence of witnesses. Postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted. As the identity of the deceased was initially unknown, efforts were made through circulation of photographs and information via WhatsApp in nearby villages. Subsequently, family members from Village Tilitanger identified the deceased as Chudru Ram, who had been missing for about 15 days. They also identified the cloth (gamcha) used for tying the stones as belonging to accused Kalinder and Dharmu. On the basis of suspicion, accused Kalinder Ram, Mahinder Ram and Dharmu Ram were detained and interrogated, wherein they disclosed their involvement in the commission of the offence. Memorandum statements of the accused were recorded. Pursuant to the memorandum of accused Kalinder Ram, a wooden stick

¶29

¶30

(sarei danda) used in the commission of offence was recovered from the forest area of Jisfari and seized. Identification proceedings of the seized articles were conducted in presence of witnesses. The seized articles including the stick and clothes were sent for forensic examination to FSL Ambikapur.

¶31

6. Upon completion of investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the accused persons and they were arrested and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur. Since the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and thereafter transferred for trial.

¶32

7. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under the aforesaid provisions. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. Their statements were recorded, wherein they denied the prosecution allegations.

¶33

8. In order to bring home the offences, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents.

¶34

9. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2025, hence, the present CrMP has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

¶35

10. Learned State counsel, assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, submits that though the scope of interference with an order of

¶36

¶37

acquittal is limited, yet the appellate Court possesses ample powers to reappreciate and reanalyze the entire evidence available on record. It is contended that if upon such reappraisal the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are found to be perverse, unreasonable or contrary to the settled principles of law, the appellate Court would be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the acquittal and record conviction. In the present case, the impugned judgment is vitiated on account of misappreciation of evidence and erroneous application of law. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the cogent and reliable circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, which clearly establishes the chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the respondents/accused. The medical evidence, particularly the postmortem report proved by PW-09 Dr. Roshan Bariyar, unequivocally establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature caused due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation, and that the death had occurred approximately 10– 15 days prior to the autopsy. This vital piece of evidence has not been given due weightage by the learned trial Court.

¶38

11. Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the incriminating circumstances including recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused, identification of the articles by witnesses, and the conduct of the accused persons, which form a complete chain leading to no other hypothesis except that of guilt of the accused. Despite this, the learned trial Court has unjustifiably discarded the prosecution evidence without assigning any

¶39

¶40

cogent reasons, thereby rendering the findings wholly perverse and unsustainable in law. It is lastly contended that the learned trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach and has acquitted the respondents on flimsy and untenable grounds, ignoring settled principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmities and deserves to be set aside, and the respondents/accused are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

¶41

12. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶42

13. After appreciating the submissions advanced by both the parties and upon marshalling the entire material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused/respondents, has elaborately held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has primarily observed that though the death of the deceased Chudru Ram was homicidal in nature, as duly proved by the medical evidence of PW-09 Dr. Roshan Bariyar, who opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons with the said crime through cogent and reliable evidence.

¶43

14. The learned trial Court has further recorded a finding that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It has been held that the essential

¶44

¶45

chain of circumstances, which is required to be complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, is not established in the present case. The Court has taken note of the fact that key prosecution witnesses, namely PW-02 Bhimram, PW-03 Sadhuram and PW-04 Chandrashekhar, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile, particularly on the aspect of identification of incriminating articles such as the gamcha allegedly belonging to the accused persons.

¶46

15. It has also been observed that the memorandum statements and recovery of articles at the instance of the accused persons are not duly corroborated by independent witnesses. The seizure of the alleged weapon (sarei danda) has also been disbelieved inasmuch as the forensic report did not detect presence of human blood on the said article, thereby weakening the prosecution case. Furthermore, the trial Court has noted that even the identification of clothes and other articles allegedly recovered from the spot has not been proved in accordance with law.

¶47

16. Upon cumulative consideration of the aforesaid deficiencies, the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete and does not irresistibly point towards the guilt of the accused persons. Giving benefit of doubt, the accused/respondents have been acquitted of aforementioned charges.

¶48

17. In view of the aforesaid detailed findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it is submitted that the conclusions arrived at are based on

¶49

¶50

proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. The findings cannot be said to be perverse or wholly unreasonable so as to warrant interference. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons for discarding the prosecution evidence and for extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

¶51

18. Accordingly, this Court, upon reappraisal of the record, does not find any substantial and compelling reason to grant leave to appeal against the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal.

¶52

19. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶53

" 8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. "

¶54

20. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave

¶55

¶56

to appeal against the judgment of acquittal does not disclose any substantial or compelling ground warranting interference. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated so as to persuade this Court to take a different view. It is well settled that unless the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are manifestly erroneous or wholly unsustainable, interference with an order of acquittal is not warranted.

¶57

21. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to point out any such infirmity in the impugned judgment which would justify reappraisal of evidence leading to reversal of acquittal. The view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based on the material available on record, and merely because another view is possible, the same cannot be a ground to grant leave to appeal.

¶58

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby rejected .

¶59

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶60

Anu

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kalindar Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kalindar Ram

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

Vasudev Vs Darasram

Vishnukant Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhjeet Lal @ Vikku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Singh Thakur Vs Ghasiram

Munna Ram Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakash Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh