STATE OF CHHATTISGARH vs KRIPA RAM KORAM

1

CGHC010086272023 2026:CGHC:46623-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 676 of 2023
Order Reserved On : 08/10/2026
Order Passed On : 04/11/2026
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station
Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
Kripa Ram Koram S/o Late Ramdev Koram Aged About 56 Years R/o
Village Nayapara Bagdongri, Police Station Narharpur, District Uttar
Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy GA.
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas &
Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, JJ

C A V Order
Per Sudhir Kumar, J.
1. The State/appellant has preferred this petition for grant of Leave
to Appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 19.9.2022
passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanker, District North Bastar,
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
Date:
2026.11.05
12:43:43
+0530
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE

2
Kanker in ST No.22/2021 whereby the learned Sessions Judge
has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under
Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant, Hamit Kumar Nag,
son of deceased Paras Ram Nag, along with the village
Sarpanch, Umendra Chand Mandavi, and other villagers came to
Police Station Narharpur on 29.05.2021 at about 7:30 am and
lodged a Merg Intimation (Ex.-P/1) stating that on the previous
evening his father, deceased Paras Ram Nag, was returning from
Devinnavagaon Road at around 6:30 pm. The complainant had
also gone to his field to discuss the harvesting of his paddy crop
with the person operating the harvester. While returning, he saw
that his father was lying dead approximately 100 metres before
reaching their house. There were signs of blood around the dead
body, and the deceased had sustained a serious injury on his
head. On the basis of aforesaid information, the police has
registered Merg Intimation vide Ex. P-1. Subsequently, on the
basis of said information, First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) was
registered against an unknown person and Crime No. 64/2021
was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
following which the investigation commenced.
3. During the course of investigation, notices under Section 175 of
the CrPC were issued to the witnesses vide Ex.-P/20. Thereafter,
in the presence of the witnesses, inquest report was prepared
vide Ex.-P/7. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the

3
Community Health Centre (CHC), Narharpur, for post-mortem
examination. The post-mortem report and the query report were
obtained vide Ex.-P/18 and Ex.-P/19, respectively.
4. During the investigation, memorandum statement of the accused
was recorded in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.-P-8. On the
basis of the said memorandum statement, one iron axe ( tangiya )
and one bamboo stick were recovered at the instance of the
accused in the presence of witnesses, and a seizure memo was
prepared vide Ex. P-9.
5. The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses, and an
arrest memo was prepared vide Ex. P-22. A sealed packet
containing the yellow floral shirt worn by the deceased Paras
Ram, a pink checked towel ( gamchha ), and a bed sheet bearing
bloodstains, in the presence of witnesses were seized vide Ex.-
P/17. On 31.05.2021, the seized bamboo stick and iron axe were
sent to the Community Health Centre, Narharpur, for examination
and opinion, and the corresponding query report was obtained.
6.
The seized articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory, Jagdalpur, for examination vide Ex. P-26, and the
examination report was subsequently received from the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur, vide Ex. P-29.
7. During the course of investigation, statements of the complainant
and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of
the CrPC. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was

4
filed against the accused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC
before the competent Court. Thereafter, the case was committed
to the Court of Session for trial.
8. The accused was charged with the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained
to him. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
9. When the statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 of the CrPC, he pleaded that he was innocent and had been
falsely implicated in the case. The accused did not examine any
witness in his defence.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
material available on record, the trial Court has acquitted the
respondent/accused as mentioned above.
11.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State
submitted that the Tangia has been seized pursuant to the
memorandum statement of the accused and the said seizure has
been duly proved by the Investigating Officer. It was further
contended that the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate and
analyze the evidence on record. On the basis of aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel prayed that the Appeal may be
allowed.
12. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/
State has been considered and the record of the case has been
perused.

5
13. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In the
instant case, the First Information Report was lodged against an
unknown person/accused. It has been established from the
evidence on record that the death of the deceased was homicidal
in nature.
MOTIVE
14. The son of the deceased namely, Hameet Kumar Nag (PW-1),
has admitted in his deposition that there was no prior enmity
between his father and the accused. The wife of the deceased
namely, Smt. Nembai Nag, (PW-2), has admitted in her cross-
examination that no dispute had occurred between her husband
and the accused prior to the incident. Another son of the
deceased namely, Satyawan Nag (PW-3), has admitted in his
cross-examination that his father had no previous enmity with the
accused nor had any dispute with him. In the present case, the
prosecution has failed to establish that any prior enmity existed
between the deceased and the accused. In the circumstances,
we are of the opinion that motive for commission of the offence
has not been established.
Extra Judicial Confession
15. The son of the deceased namely, Hameet Kumar Nag (PW-1) has
deposed that the accused had confessed before the villagers to
have committed murder of his father. Similarly, wife of the
deceased namely, Smt. Nembai Nag, (PW-2) has stated that she

6
has heard that the accused has made extra judicial confession
regarding murder of her husband. However, the other son of the
deceased namely, Satyawan Nag (PW-3) did not depose
regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused. A
perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the statements
pertaining to the alleged admission of guilt were made in the
context of memorandum of the accused. There is no evidence to
establish that the accused has made extra judicial confession
before any villager. Furthermore, the prosecution has not
examined any villager to substantiate the alleged extra judicial
confession. Thus, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has
failed to establish that the accused has made extra judicial
confession admitting commission of offence.
Memorandum and seizure
16. Investigating Officer namely, Tobias Khakha (PW-11) has deposed
that on 29.5.2021, he recorded the memorandum statement of the
accused in the presence of witnesses Umendra Chand Mandavi
and Jitendra Nag. Pursuant to the said memorandum statements,
an iron Tangia (axe) having bloodstains and a bamboo stick were
seized in the presence of aforesaid witnesses vide seizure memo
(Ex.-P/9).
17. Jitendra Kumar Nag (PW-4), a witness to the memorandum and
seizure, has deposed that the memorandum statement of the
accused was recorded in his presence. He has further stated that

7
the accused took the police to the field of Firturam and pointed out
a stick lying there, stating that he has assaulted the deceased with
the said stick. This witness has further deposed that the police
personnel informed him that the Tangia (axe) was lying at the
Police Station. The witness further deposed that the police has
seized the stick. In view of the aforesaid testimony, this witness
has been declared hostile by the prosecution with respect to the
alleged seizure of Tangia. On being declared hostile, this witness
has denied that the Tangia was seized in his presence. He
merely affirmed that the stick has been seized in his presence.
18. According to the prosecution case, the accused first assaulted the
deceased with the stick and thereafter struck him with Tangia on
his head, thereby caused his death. However, this independent
witness {i.e. Jitendra Kumar Nag (PW-4)} has not supported the
case of the prosecution so far as alleged seizure of Tangia is
concerned. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the
seizure of Tangia (axe) has not been proved by the testimony of
this witness.
19. The other independent witness to the memorandum and seizure is
Umendra Chand Mandavi (PW-5). He has deposed that the
accused had disclosed during recording of memorandum
statement that he had thrown the stick away. He has further
stated that the police has seized a bamboo stick while the
accused was in police custody. The prosecution has declared this
witness hostile. On being declared hostile, this witness has

8
denied that the accused had stated that the Tangia (axe) was in
his possession. He has further deposed that the accused had
stated that the Tangia has been taken to the police station and
that it was kept there. In his cross-examination, this witness has
denied that the police had seized Tangia along with bamboo stick.
Thus, the testimony of this witness does not establish seizure of
the Tangia allegedly used in the commission of offence, and the
testimony of the Investigating Officer regarding seizure of the
Tangia (axe) has not been corroborated by the independent
witness.
20. For the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that in the
present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for
commission of offence, the alleged extra judicial confession has
not been proved, and the seizure of Tangia (axe) allegedly used in
the commission of offence, pursuant to the memorandum
statement of the accused, has also not been established by any
independent witness. The mere fact that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature coupled with the statement of
the I.O. regarding alleged seizure of Tangia, is insufficient to
convict the accused. The trial Court has properly appreciated and
analyzed the evidence on record and has been absolutely justified
in recording the finding of acquittal.
21.
No ground is made out for interference with the impugned
judgment of acquittal.

9
22. In the result, prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal is rejected and
the present CRMP is hereby dismissed.
23. The original records of the trial Court be returned along with a
copy of the judgment.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar)
Judge Judge
Barve