Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pawan Khes on 11 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:7567-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 748 of 2022
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sitapur, District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
1. Pawan Khes S/o Rajendra Khes Aged About 25 Years R/o
Uraonpara, Sitapur, P.S. Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
2. Bhuneshwar Namdeo @ Bhune, S/o Late Surendra Namdeo,
Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bajarpara, Sitapur, P.S. Sitapur,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.02.11
18:35:20
+0530
2
2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.12.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.28 of 2019 by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the "learned trial Court"), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:
(i) On 19.12.2018, complainant, Sohani Ekka (PW-1) lodged a complaint alleging that on 01.12.2018 her daughter Savitri Kesh was burnt, but she did not inform the reason of burning.
During the treatment at Community Health Centre, Sitapur, deceased Savitri Khes made statement to the Tahsildar that Pawan Khes has set fire. On 19.12.2018, the deceased died. The Police registered the morgue intimation and also registered the FIR as Crime No. 190 of 2018 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Police, during the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused Pawan Khes. The Police after due investigation filed the charge-sheet before the learned trial Court. During the trial, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, allowing the application, vide order dated 30.01.2020 took cognizance against accused 3 Bhuneshwar @ Bhune under Section 302 of the IPC.
(ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents/accused and the respondent/accused was put to face charge before the learned trial Court. The respondents/accused abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses in its favour.
(iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2021, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.
4. Learned State counsel submits that the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents/accused by unjustifiably discarding the evidence of the complainant without assigning any cogent, convincing, or substantial reasons. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of Sohani (PW-1), who categorically deposed that the deceased had informed her that accused Bhuneshwar had set her clothes on fire. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court committed a serious error in ignoring the dying declaration recorded by Deepika Netam (PW-6), which is material and carries significant 4 evidentiary value. It is also contended that Dr. Amosh Kindo (PW-4), who conducted the postmortem examination, clearly opined that the deceased had sustained old burn injuries on various parts of her body amounting to approximately 45% burns, and that the cause of death was due to burn injuries. Despite there being consistent, reliable, and corroborative evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court failed to properly evaluate and appreciate their testimonies in their correct legal perspective and erroneously acquitted the accused. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are, therefore, perverse, contrary to the evidence available on record, and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is most respectfully prayed that leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal be granted.
5. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.
6. Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 27 to 34 as follows:
"27. Patwari Narendra Yadav (PW-08) stated in his court testimony that on 12.01.2019 he received a written request from the Station House Officer, Sitapur, in connection with Crime No. 190/18 under Section 302 IPC, for preparing a spot map of the place of occurrence located at the house of Seena Uraon at Imlitikra. The said request is Exhibit P-16, and he admitted his signature on it. Based on this request, on 14.01.2019 he visited the place of occurrence and prepared a spot map at the instance of the complainant, Suhani Uraon. In the map, he marked 5 the place of occurrence as Point No. 01 and other nearby places as Points No. 02 to 08. The spot map is Exhibit P-17, bearing his signature. At that time, the complainant Suhani Uraon affixed her thumb impression. Thereafter, he forwarded the spot map to the Station House Officer, Sitapur. This witness is a formal witness. His statement does not provide any evidence against the accused persons.
28. From the entire prosecution evidence and cross- examination, it appears that although witnesses including Sohani Ekka (PW-1), merg inquiry officer Anil Pandey (PW-3), and medical witnesses Dr. Ranita Toppo and Dr. Amos Kindo (PW-4) proved that Savitri Khes died due to infection resulting from burn injuries, no clear evidence was produced to establish that the accused Pawan Khes or accused Bhuneshwar caused the burning.
29. There is no eyewitness in this case. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The settled law is that conviction on circumstantial evidence requires: (1) The circumstances relied upon must be firmly and conclusively established. (2) Such circumstances must clearly point toward the guilt of the accused. (3) All circumstances taken together must form a complete chain leading only to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence and ruling out any other possibility.
30. On examining the prosecution evidence, it appears that there are major contradictions between the court testimony of complainant Sohani Ekka (PW-
1) and her earlier merg intimation (Ex.P/2), FIR 6 (Ex.P/3), and police statement (Ex.P/1). In earlier documents, it was alleged that accused Pawan set Savitri Khes on fire, whereas in court testimony she alleged that accused Bhuneshwar committed the act.
Therefore, her testimony is unreliable. Witness Bhuneshwar Namdev (PW-2), who was later made an accused, is also not reliable. Similarly, witness Sunita Ekka (PW-8) does not provide evidence against accused Bhuneshwar.
31. Prosecution witness Tehsildar Deepika Netam (PW-6) stated that she recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, wherein the deceased allegedly named accused Pawan Khes. However, there is no clear evidence regarding the recording of the dying declaration or any action taken based on it. The merg inquiry officer Anil Pandey (PW-3) and investigating officer Manish Dhruve (PW-7) admitted that they had no knowledge of any such dying declaration during investigation. Even PW-6 could not clearly explain how the declaration was recorded or communicated to police authorities. Moreover, the deceased's mother (PW-1) attributed the incident to Bhuneshwar. Therefore, no reliable conclusion can be drawn from the alleged dying declaration.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. When the origin and manner of the incident remain doubtful or motive is not clearly established, conviction cannot be sustained (Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 4 CJLJ 337 (SC)).
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in criminal trials, conviction must be based on 7 clear, cogent, and reliable evidence. Mere suspicion or probability cannot substitute legal proof. If reasonable doubt exists, the benefit must go to the accused (Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, reported in (AIR 2013 SC 3817); Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017 and Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1979).
34. In this case, the prosecution failed to present clear and trustworthy evidence to prove that accused Pawan Khes or accused Bhuneshwar set Savitri Khes on fire. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.12.2018 at about 2:30 p.m., at village Imli Tikrapara, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), the accused intentionally set fire to the clothes of deceased Savitri Khes at a rented house of Sona Uraon, causing severe burn injuries that ultimately led to her death during treatment on 19.12.2018. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, accused Pawan Khes and accused Bhuneshwar Namdev are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and are set at liberty."
7. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal.
8. 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 8 OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:-
"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."
9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan