News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 190 | 2026:CGHC:11650
March 11, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court in Bilaspur has acquitted six men who had earlier been convicted in a robbery and attempted murder case from Mungeli district, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal delivered the judgment on 11 March 2026 while deciding multiple criminal appeals challenging a 2024 decision of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli. The trial court had convicted the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of up to seven years.
The High Court, however, found serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the test identification parade and the alleged recovery of stolen property.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 5 May 2023 at around 6:20 a.m. when complainant Ramswaroop Dewangan and his companions were travelling on a motorcycle from village Sawatpur towards Lamti via Sargaon. Near Aarti Dhaba on National Highway-130, six persons riding two motorcycles allegedly stopped them, abused them and attacked them with knives.
During the incident, two of the victims sustained injuries after being stabbed. The attackers allegedly looted cash, a mobile phone and a motorcycle before fleeing. Based on the complaint, a case was registered at Sargaon police station in Mungeli district.
After investigation, the police arrested six individuals and claimed to have recovered cash, motorcycles and knives allegedly used in the crime.
The trial court convicted the accused under sections related to wrongful restraint, robbery with deadly weapons and attempt to murder under the Indian Penal Code. Two of the accused were also convicted under provisions of the Arms Act.
The court relied primarily on the identification of the accused by the complainant and the alleged recovery of stolen articles.
While examining the appeals, the High Court noted that the First Information Report did not mention the names or physical descriptions of the accused. The prosecution relied heavily on identification proceedings conducted later.
However, the Court found that the identification parade was conducted only with the complainant and not with other eyewitnesses who were present at the scene. It also observed that the number of persons mixed with the suspects during the identification process was inadequate and did not meet accepted legal standards.
The complainant also admitted during cross-examination that the accused had been shown to him by police before the identification proceedings. The Court held that such circumstances seriously undermine the reliability of the identification exercise.
The High Court also questioned the reliability of the alleged recovery of stolen items and weapons. Independent witnesses to the recovery either turned hostile or failed to clearly support the prosecution’s version.
In addition, the investigating officer did not properly explain the disclosure statements that allegedly led to the recovery of items. The Court noted that merely marking documents during trial does not prove the contents of such statements as required under law.
The judges further pointed out that the prosecution could not establish that the motorcycles seized during investigation were the same vehicles allegedly used or stolen during the crime. Similarly, the recovery of ₹300 from one accused could not be conclusively linked to the robbery.
After evaluating the evidence, the High Court concluded that the identification proceedings, disclosure statements and recovery of articles were all doubtful and not proved in accordance with law.
Given these shortcomings, the Court held that the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence was not established beyond reasonable doubt. It therefore set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and allowed the appeals. The Court also directed that the accused be released immediately if they were not required in any other case.
Case Reference : Cr. A. No.-411 of 2024, 467 of 2024, 529 of 2024, 930 of 2024, 1795 of 2024 & 1809 of 2024 Saurabh @ Somudhrav vs State of Chhattisgarh; Counsels: For Appellant Saurabh @ Somudhrav, Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate; for Appellant Priyanshu Sahu @ Swayam Raja Sahu, Shri Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate; for Appellant Kanha @ Vedprakash Nagarchee, Shri Vijay Shankar S. Mishra, Advocate; for Appellant Sandeep @ Prashant Vaishnav, Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate; for Appellant Vivek Dhruv, Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate; for Appellant Aslam @ Ankush Madame, Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate; for State/Respondent, Shri Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
