Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 460
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
Jagdish Gond
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The death; not unequivocally proved to be a
murder, of a young woman, married for two years,
led to the prosecution of her husband and in-laws.
The Trial Court acquitted all the three accused
finding the death to be a suicide and holding that
there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to
the guilt of the accused. The High Court; on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.07
17:48:50 IST
Reason:
appeal by the State, against the acquittal, upheld
Page 1 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the
husband under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ the IPC ’) and sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
2. On facts regarding the incident, suffice it to
notice that the husband, on returning from work,
found his wife lying supine on the cot inside their
house. The accused immediately informed his
parents; living nearby and also the Police Station
at Mulmula, District – Janjgir, Champa, where it
was recorded under Section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, ‘ the Cr.PC ’)
as a sudden and unnatural death. The death was
detected on 29.01.2017 and the intimation was
made on the same day. An inquest was carried out
in which a ligature mark was noticed on the front
side of the neck of the deceased. No suspicion
was raised by anyone regarding the death. On
03.02.2017, on a complaint lodged by the father of
Page 2 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
the deceased, an FIR was registered and the three
accused were arrested. A charge sheet was filed,
and charge was framed under Sections 498A &
306 read with Section 34 and in the alternative
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. In the trial, eight witnesses were examined.
PW-1; the Patwari who prepared the site plan , PW-
2; father of the deceased, PW-3; Tehsildar who
prepared the inquest report (P-9), PW-4; mother of
the deceased, PW-5; who registered the FIR on the
complaint (P-5) of PW2, PW-6; the cousin of the
deceased, PW-7; the Investigating Officer and PW-
8; the Doctor who conducted the postmortem.
4. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding
the deceased to have committed suicide and held
there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to
the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court
emphasized the fact that there is no clear opinion
coming from the Doctor, who was examined as
Page 3 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
PW-8, as to the cause of death. Examining the
authoritative medical texts, it was opined that the
ligature mark on the front of the neck and the
various fractures noticed from the body, as has
been stated in the postmortem report, the clear
indication is that the death was not one by reason
of strangulation; especially since the ligature mark
was not found around the neck; ruling out the
possibility of death by hanging or strangulation.
5. The High Court however emphasized that the
accused and the deceased were living together
and hence, the accused should have an
explanation regarding the death of his wife under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
defense of the accused that he was on duty, at a
nearby cement factory on the ill-fated night was
disbelieved, since it was not substantiated by any
evidence led on the part of the accused. On the
grounds only of the ‘ alibi’ put forth having been
Page 4 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
discredited and the admission of the deceased and
the accused living together in the same house, the
High Court convicted the accused under Section
302 of the IPC.
6. We have given our anxious consideration,
especially in the context of the acquittal by the
Trial Court having been reversed by the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court had,
in fact, noticed various judgments of this Court in
so far as the consideration of an appeal against
acquittal. It is trite that unless it is demonstrated
that there is some manifest illegality or perversity
in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while
arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an
acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed. Where
two views were possible, it is also trite, that the
one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused,
if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset
lightly by the Appellate Court. The presumption of
Page 5 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
innocence available to an accused gets further
fortified by the acquittal entered by the Trial Court.
Having noticed the trite law, we have to say, the
High Court unfortunately reversed the acquittal
without anything other than a finding on alibi
having not been proved and the accused not
having offered any explanation regarding the
death of the deceased, which occurred while they
were living together.
7. Admittedly, the first information as recorded
in the sudden and unnatural death intimation
register was given by the husband, who is the first
accused in the above case. He was accompanied
by the Village Kotwar when he appeared before the
Police Station, Mulmula. Even in the said
information recorded, it was clearly noted that on
28.01.2017 at around 9 O’clock he had gone to the
cement factory for labour work and on his return at
6 AM on 29.01.2017, he saw his wife lying supine
Page 6 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
on her cot. After having entered into the house by
breaking open the door, which was closed from the
inside, he immediately informed his parents and
also the Ward Panch and as noticed above, he was
accompanied by the Village Kotwar when he
intimated the fact at the Police Station.
8. The Inquest Report, Exhibit P-9 prepared by
PW-3, indicates that there was no suspicion raised
by any person present at the inquest, regarding
the death of the woman. In fact, the father of the
deceased along with her in-laws had categorically
stated that the accused was not present in the
house on the night when the incident occurred.
The father of the deceased, PW-1, the mother PW-
4 and cousin brother PW-6 deposed that even
when they saw the deceased with a visible mark
on her neck, they suspected strangulation to be
the cause of her death. This is contrary to the
facts recorded in the Inquest Report. PW-1 also
Page 7 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
stated that in his written complaint produced as
Exhibit P-5 he had clearly stated about this
suspicion, which is startlingly absent in Exhibit P-5
as has been admitted, in cross-examination, by
PW-7 who registered the FIR on the complaint
Exhibit P-5 and carried out investigation. While PW-
2 and PW-6 denied that they were aware that the
accused was absent in the house on the ill-fated
night, PW-4, the mother, in her cross-examination
admitted that she was informed that the accused
was not present in the scene of occurrence. The
fact of absence of the accused at the time of
occurrence having been categorically stated in the
first intimation, we find the High Court’s conclusion
that it was his duty to establish the alibi is flawed.
9. We cannot also agree with the finding of the
High Court regarding the effect of Section 106,
placing reliance on the decision of this Court in
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Page 8 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
1
Maharashtra . The said decision is an authority
for the principle that when an accused is alleged to
have committed the murder of his wife; if the
prosecution establishes that shortly before the
crime, they were seen together or the offence
takes place in the dwelling home where the
husband also resides, then if the accused does not
offer any explanation or offers an explanation
which is palpably false; that would be a strong
circumstance, establishing his culpability in the
crime. However, it cannot be the sole
circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on
the part of the accused husband. In the present
case, the accused has also offered an explanation
that he had gone for duty at the cement factory;
which is also mentioned in the first intimation
given by the accused. The police ought to have
inquired about his presence at the factory to
1 (2006) 10 SCC 681
Page 9 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
disprove his alibi . Even before the FIR was
registered, the intimation recorded clearly
indicated this fact. The explanation was not one
offered as an after-thought nor can it be termed to
be false or even an improbable one. A mere
suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt,
especially when there is not available a chain of
circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt
of the accused in the alleged crime, as has been
held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
2
Maharashtra .
10. The alibi being a possible and probable
explanation, the accused cannot also be found to
be in the teeth of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
We find that there was not enough material to
upset the order of acquittal of the Trial Court,
especially when there was also no evidence led
regarding the death being a result of homicide.
2 (1984) 4 SCC 116
Page 10 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
11. PW-8, the Doctor who conducted the
postmortem had categorically deposed that the
ligature mark was only found on the front part of
the neck. The evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6,
the close relatives of the deceased, who also saw
the body, spoke of the ligature mark, solely on the
front side of the neck. There were no ante mortem
injuries noticed in the inquest report or the
postmortem. The cause of death in the opinion of
the expert was due to ‘ asphyxia shock and sudden
cardio respiratory arrest as a result of ante
mortem compression of trachea, fracture of cricoid
cartilage within 24 hours of postmortem ’ (sic). The
postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-11
and the police had raised a query regarding the
death by Exhibit P-15. Exhibit P-15 raised two
questions (i) whether the mark found on the front
side of neck of the deceased can be caused by
Page 11 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
throttling and (ii) whether the death is homicidal or
suicidal. To the said queries, reply by PW-8,
Doctor, was as follows:-
“In this relation we had told that the mark
found on the body of deceased is caused by
noose and mark of throttling has not been
found. Noose was not found on the body of
deceased. So, the death of deceased was
homicidal or suicidal is the subject of
investigation. In this relation our report is
Ex.P/16 and its part A to A bears signature
of Senior Dr. R. Dahire.”
Hence, there was no clarity as to whether the
death was homicidal. We would not venture, as far
as the Trial Court did, to find the death to be a
suicide. But the fact remains that it has not been
established to be homicide.
12. Considering the fact that there was a charge
laid under Sections 498A & 306 read with Section
34 of the IPC, we looked at the depositions of the
related witnesses; PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6. The
Page 12 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
depositions of all three witnesses is only to the
effect that the in-laws of the deceased used to
complain that the deceased was lazy, sick and
slept throughout the day. There is absolutely no
allegation of any physical violence on the
deceased. Nor are there any injuries found on the
body, immediately before the incident, which could
lead to such an allegation.
13. We do not find a single circumstance pointing
to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of
circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the
accused and excluding every possible hypothesis,
except that of guilt. True, the young woman, who
was married just two years back died, tragically, at
the house of the husband. There is no evidence to
show that the husband was available on the ill-
fated night when the death occurred. The
husband–accused had a plausible explanation that
he was on duty when the death of his wife
Page 13 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
occurred. It was the husband who first intimated
the police about the sudden and unnatural death
of his wife. The relatives of the deceased having
come to the matrimonial house of the deceased on
the very same day of the death, did not raise any
suspicion as to the death being homicidal. It was
after five days that a complaint was registered,
alleging suicide by reason of the constant
complaints raised against the deceased by her
husband and in-laws; which remained largely
unsubstantiated.
14. Having found absolutely no circumstance
leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable
to sustain the order of the High Court which we set
aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial
Court. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The
accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in
any other case. The bail bonds, if any, executed
by the accused shall stand discharged.
Page 14 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 07, 2025.
Page 15 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2605/2024
JAGDISH GOND Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 107796/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 07-04-2025 This matter was called on for
pronouncement of Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR
Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv.
Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv.
Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced
the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and His Lordship.
The operative portion of the Judgment is
extracted as :-
Page 16 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
“14. Having found absolutely no
circumstance leading to the
guilt of the accused, we are
unable to sustain the order of
the High Court which we set
aside and restore the order of
acquittal of the Trial Court.
The Criminal Appeal stands
allowed. The accused shall be
set free forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case. The
bail bonds, if any, executed by
the accused shall stand
discharged.
15. Pending applications,
if any, shall also stand
disposed of.“
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
Page 17 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
Jagdish Gond
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The death; not unequivocally proved to be a
murder, of a young woman, married for two years,
led to the prosecution of her husband and in-laws.
The Trial Court acquitted all the three accused
finding the death to be a suicide and holding that
there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to
the guilt of the accused. The High Court; on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.07
17:48:50 IST
Reason:
appeal by the State, against the acquittal, upheld
Page 1 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the
husband under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ the IPC ’) and sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
2. On facts regarding the incident, suffice it to
notice that the husband, on returning from work,
found his wife lying supine on the cot inside their
house. The accused immediately informed his
parents; living nearby and also the Police Station
at Mulmula, District – Janjgir, Champa, where it
was recorded under Section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, ‘ the Cr.PC ’)
as a sudden and unnatural death. The death was
detected on 29.01.2017 and the intimation was
made on the same day. An inquest was carried out
in which a ligature mark was noticed on the front
side of the neck of the deceased. No suspicion
was raised by anyone regarding the death. On
03.02.2017, on a complaint lodged by the father of
Page 2 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
the deceased, an FIR was registered and the three
accused were arrested. A charge sheet was filed,
and charge was framed under Sections 498A &
306 read with Section 34 and in the alternative
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. In the trial, eight witnesses were examined.
PW-1; the Patwari who prepared the site plan , PW-
2; father of the deceased, PW-3; Tehsildar who
prepared the inquest report (P-9), PW-4; mother of
the deceased, PW-5; who registered the FIR on the
complaint (P-5) of PW2, PW-6; the cousin of the
deceased, PW-7; the Investigating Officer and PW-
8; the Doctor who conducted the postmortem.
4. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding
the deceased to have committed suicide and held
there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to
the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court
emphasized the fact that there is no clear opinion
coming from the Doctor, who was examined as
Page 3 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
PW-8, as to the cause of death. Examining the
authoritative medical texts, it was opined that the
ligature mark on the front of the neck and the
various fractures noticed from the body, as has
been stated in the postmortem report, the clear
indication is that the death was not one by reason
of strangulation; especially since the ligature mark
was not found around the neck; ruling out the
possibility of death by hanging or strangulation.
5. The High Court however emphasized that the
accused and the deceased were living together
and hence, the accused should have an
explanation regarding the death of his wife under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
defense of the accused that he was on duty, at a
nearby cement factory on the ill-fated night was
disbelieved, since it was not substantiated by any
evidence led on the part of the accused. On the
grounds only of the ‘ alibi’ put forth having been
Page 4 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
discredited and the admission of the deceased and
the accused living together in the same house, the
High Court convicted the accused under Section
302 of the IPC.
6. We have given our anxious consideration,
especially in the context of the acquittal by the
Trial Court having been reversed by the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court had,
in fact, noticed various judgments of this Court in
so far as the consideration of an appeal against
acquittal. It is trite that unless it is demonstrated
that there is some manifest illegality or perversity
in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while
arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an
acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed. Where
two views were possible, it is also trite, that the
one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused,
if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset
lightly by the Appellate Court. The presumption of
Page 5 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
innocence available to an accused gets further
fortified by the acquittal entered by the Trial Court.
Having noticed the trite law, we have to say, the
High Court unfortunately reversed the acquittal
without anything other than a finding on alibi
having not been proved and the accused not
having offered any explanation regarding the
death of the deceased, which occurred while they
were living together.
7. Admittedly, the first information as recorded
in the sudden and unnatural death intimation
register was given by the husband, who is the first
accused in the above case. He was accompanied
by the Village Kotwar when he appeared before the
Police Station, Mulmula. Even in the said
information recorded, it was clearly noted that on
28.01.2017 at around 9 O’clock he had gone to the
cement factory for labour work and on his return at
6 AM on 29.01.2017, he saw his wife lying supine
Page 6 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
on her cot. After having entered into the house by
breaking open the door, which was closed from the
inside, he immediately informed his parents and
also the Ward Panch and as noticed above, he was
accompanied by the Village Kotwar when he
intimated the fact at the Police Station.
8. The Inquest Report, Exhibit P-9 prepared by
PW-3, indicates that there was no suspicion raised
by any person present at the inquest, regarding
the death of the woman. In fact, the father of the
deceased along with her in-laws had categorically
stated that the accused was not present in the
house on the night when the incident occurred.
The father of the deceased, PW-1, the mother PW-
4 and cousin brother PW-6 deposed that even
when they saw the deceased with a visible mark
on her neck, they suspected strangulation to be
the cause of her death. This is contrary to the
facts recorded in the Inquest Report. PW-1 also
Page 7 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
stated that in his written complaint produced as
Exhibit P-5 he had clearly stated about this
suspicion, which is startlingly absent in Exhibit P-5
as has been admitted, in cross-examination, by
PW-7 who registered the FIR on the complaint
Exhibit P-5 and carried out investigation. While PW-
2 and PW-6 denied that they were aware that the
accused was absent in the house on the ill-fated
night, PW-4, the mother, in her cross-examination
admitted that she was informed that the accused
was not present in the scene of occurrence. The
fact of absence of the accused at the time of
occurrence having been categorically stated in the
first intimation, we find the High Court’s conclusion
that it was his duty to establish the alibi is flawed.
9. We cannot also agree with the finding of the
High Court regarding the effect of Section 106,
placing reliance on the decision of this Court in
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Page 8 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
1
Maharashtra . The said decision is an authority
for the principle that when an accused is alleged to
have committed the murder of his wife; if the
prosecution establishes that shortly before the
crime, they were seen together or the offence
takes place in the dwelling home where the
husband also resides, then if the accused does not
offer any explanation or offers an explanation
which is palpably false; that would be a strong
circumstance, establishing his culpability in the
crime. However, it cannot be the sole
circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on
the part of the accused husband. In the present
case, the accused has also offered an explanation
that he had gone for duty at the cement factory;
which is also mentioned in the first intimation
given by the accused. The police ought to have
inquired about his presence at the factory to
1 (2006) 10 SCC 681
Page 9 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
disprove his alibi . Even before the FIR was
registered, the intimation recorded clearly
indicated this fact. The explanation was not one
offered as an after-thought nor can it be termed to
be false or even an improbable one. A mere
suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt,
especially when there is not available a chain of
circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt
of the accused in the alleged crime, as has been
held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
2
Maharashtra .
10. The alibi being a possible and probable
explanation, the accused cannot also be found to
be in the teeth of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
We find that there was not enough material to
upset the order of acquittal of the Trial Court,
especially when there was also no evidence led
regarding the death being a result of homicide.
2 (1984) 4 SCC 116
Page 10 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
11. PW-8, the Doctor who conducted the
postmortem had categorically deposed that the
ligature mark was only found on the front part of
the neck. The evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6,
the close relatives of the deceased, who also saw
the body, spoke of the ligature mark, solely on the
front side of the neck. There were no ante mortem
injuries noticed in the inquest report or the
postmortem. The cause of death in the opinion of
the expert was due to ‘ asphyxia shock and sudden
cardio respiratory arrest as a result of ante
mortem compression of trachea, fracture of cricoid
cartilage within 24 hours of postmortem ’ (sic). The
postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-11
and the police had raised a query regarding the
death by Exhibit P-15. Exhibit P-15 raised two
questions (i) whether the mark found on the front
side of neck of the deceased can be caused by
Page 11 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
throttling and (ii) whether the death is homicidal or
suicidal. To the said queries, reply by PW-8,
Doctor, was as follows:-
“In this relation we had told that the mark
found on the body of deceased is caused by
noose and mark of throttling has not been
found. Noose was not found on the body of
deceased. So, the death of deceased was
homicidal or suicidal is the subject of
investigation. In this relation our report is
Ex.P/16 and its part A to A bears signature
of Senior Dr. R. Dahire.”
Hence, there was no clarity as to whether the
death was homicidal. We would not venture, as far
as the Trial Court did, to find the death to be a
suicide. But the fact remains that it has not been
established to be homicide.
12. Considering the fact that there was a charge
laid under Sections 498A & 306 read with Section
34 of the IPC, we looked at the depositions of the
related witnesses; PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6. The
Page 12 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
depositions of all three witnesses is only to the
effect that the in-laws of the deceased used to
complain that the deceased was lazy, sick and
slept throughout the day. There is absolutely no
allegation of any physical violence on the
deceased. Nor are there any injuries found on the
body, immediately before the incident, which could
lead to such an allegation.
13. We do not find a single circumstance pointing
to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of
circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the
accused and excluding every possible hypothesis,
except that of guilt. True, the young woman, who
was married just two years back died, tragically, at
the house of the husband. There is no evidence to
show that the husband was available on the ill-
fated night when the death occurred. The
husband–accused had a plausible explanation that
he was on duty when the death of his wife
Page 13 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
occurred. It was the husband who first intimated
the police about the sudden and unnatural death
of his wife. The relatives of the deceased having
come to the matrimonial house of the deceased on
the very same day of the death, did not raise any
suspicion as to the death being homicidal. It was
after five days that a complaint was registered,
alleging suicide by reason of the constant
complaints raised against the deceased by her
husband and in-laws; which remained largely
unsubstantiated.
14. Having found absolutely no circumstance
leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable
to sustain the order of the High Court which we set
aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial
Court. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The
accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in
any other case. The bail bonds, if any, executed
by the accused shall stand discharged.
Page 14 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 07, 2025.
Page 15 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2605/2024
JAGDISH GOND Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 107796/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 07-04-2025 This matter was called on for
pronouncement of Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR
Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv.
Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv.
Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced
the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and His Lordship.
The operative portion of the Judgment is
extracted as :-
Page 16 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
“14. Having found absolutely no
circumstance leading to the
guilt of the accused, we are
unable to sustain the order of
the High Court which we set
aside and restore the order of
acquittal of the Trial Court.
The Criminal Appeal stands
allowed. The accused shall be
set free forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case. The
bail bonds, if any, executed by
the accused shall stand
discharged.
15. Pending applications,
if any, shall also stand
disposed of.“
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
Page 17 of 17
Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024