Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Muiba @ Gaganna @ Dokra @ Dharmendra … on 13 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
CGHC010063232026 2026:CGHC:29273-DB
ANURADHA
NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.07.13
17:17:23
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 531 of 2026
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District-
Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
Muiba @ Gaganna @ Dokra @ Dharmendra Netam S/o Lachhen
Netam Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Basawapur, Police Station
Jimlagatta District- Gadchirouli (Maharastra)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate (Amicus
Curiae)
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for
the appellant/State and Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Amicus
Curiae, appearing for the respondent.
2
2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, “the NIA Act“) is directed
against the judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Special Case
(NIA) No.09/2019, whereby the respondent/accused, namely
Muiba @ Gaganna @ Dokra @ Dharmendra Netam, has been
acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 and
27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908, Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha
Adhiniyam, 2005, and Sections 16, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by extending to him the benefit
of doubt. The acquittal has principally been recorded on the
ground that the prosecution failed to establish the memorandum
and consequential recoveries beyond reasonable doubt and that
the evidence led by the prosecution suffered from material
contradictions and infirmities.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.10.2018, a joint
team of security forces, while conducting an anti-Naxalite search
operation in the forest area near village Bade Gobra, Supadongri
Pahadi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mainpur, District
Gariaband, came under indiscriminate firing allegedly opened by
armed members of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. It is
alleged that the extremists had also planted Improvised Explosive
Devices (IEDs) with the intention of causing death and grievous
3
injuries to the police personnel. The security forces retaliated in
self-defence, whereupon the extremists fled into the dense forest
taking advantage of the terrain. On the basis of the report lodged
by the police party, the concerned crime was registered and
investigation was set into motion.
4. During the course of investigation, the respondent/accused Muiba
@ Gaganna @ Dokra @ Dharmendra Netam, who was already in
the custody of the police in connection with another case, was
taken into custody in the present case on 30.06.2019. It is the
prosecution case that the respondent made a memorandum
statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, pursuant
to which various articles allegedly used by the banned
organization, including country-made firearms, gelatin sticks,
Naxalite literature, an AK-47 rifle, live cartridges, cash amounting
to ₹2,47,000/-, magazines, radio sets, backpacks and other
incriminating materials, were recovered from different places at
his instance.
5. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed a
charge-sheet against the respondent for offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act,
1959, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 8
of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and
Sections 16, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
4
Act, 1967. The learned Special Judge framed charges
accordingly, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses and
exhibited documentary evidence in support of its case. Upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Special Judge, by judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed in Special
Case (NIA) No.09/2019, held that the prosecution had failed to
establish the memorandum and consequential recoveries beyond
reasonable doubt, noticed material contradictions and
inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and
consequently extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent,
acquitting him of all the charges.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 19.09.2025 passed
by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur in Special Case
(NIA) No.09/2019, the appellant/State has preferred the present
criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008, assailing the findings recorded by the trial
Court as being contrary to the evidence available on record and
the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in
criminal trials.
8. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing
for the appellant/State would submit that the learned Special
Judge has committed a manifest error in acquitting the
5
respondent by adopting a hyper-technical approach in
appreciating the evidence on record. It is contended that the
prosecution had succeeded in proving that the respondent had
made a voluntary disclosure statement, pursuant to which several
incriminating articles, including an AK-47 rifle, live cartridges,
explosives, Naxalite literature and other materials connected with
the banned CPI (Maoist) organization, were recovered from
places exclusively within his knowledge. Such recoveries
constitute a highly incriminating circumstance admissible under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which has not been
appreciated in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that
the trial Court has attached undue importance to minor
discrepancies and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly the police witnesses associated with the
memorandum and seizure proceedings, while ignoring that such
inconsistencies are natural and do not go to the root of the
prosecution case. Merely because independent witnesses were
not associated with the seizure proceedings or because there
were certain variations regarding the manner of recovery, the
entire prosecution case could not have been discarded, especially
when the official witnesses consistently supported the recoveries
and there was no material to establish any motive for falsely
implicating the respondent.
9. Learned Deputy Government Advocate would further contend that
the trial Court has misapplied the principles governing the
6
admissibility and evidentiary value of discoveries under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The finding that the prosecution
failed to establish the recoveries beyond reasonable doubt is
contrary to the evidence available on record. The Court has failed
to appreciate that the respondent’s disclosure led to the discovery
of concealed arms, explosives and other articles which were not
otherwise within the knowledge of the investigating agency,
thereby furnishing a strong incriminating circumstance connecting
the respondent with the offences alleged. It is, therefore,
submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from
serious errors of law and appreciation of evidence, rendering it
perverse and unsustainable. The findings recorded by the learned
Special Judge are contrary to the material available on record and
have resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that
the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2025
be set aside, and the respondent be convicted in accordance with
law.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced by the learned Government Advocate and
would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal is based on
a meticulous appreciation of the entire oral and documentary
evidence and does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or
misapplication of law warranting interference by this Court in an
appeal against acquittal. It is submitted that the learned trial Court
7
has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for extending the
benefit of doubt to the respondent and the view so taken is a
plausible one based on the evidence available on record.
11. Learned Amicus Curiae would further submit that the entire
prosecution case rests solely upon the alleged memorandum
statement of the respondent and the consequential recoveries
purportedly made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the prosecution has failed to prove the memorandum
and recoveries in accordance with law. The seizure witnesses,
namely PW-5 Dilip Thakur and PW-14 Vijay Kumar Mishra, have
not consistently supported the prosecution case and their
testimonies are replete with material contradictions. PW-5
admitted that he had signed the memorandum and seizure
documents at the police station and not at the place of recovery
and did not support the preparation of the recovery panchnamas
(Exhibits P-18 and P-19). Likewise, PW-14 admitted that no
independent witness was associated with the recovery
proceedings, that he could not state the time at which the
memorandum was recorded, and that he had no knowledge of the
articles allegedly recovered. In these circumstances, the learned
trial Court rightly held that the alleged recoveries were shrouded
in serious doubt. It is further submitted that none of the members
of the police party present at the time of the alleged incident
identified the respondent as one of the assailants. The
prosecution has not conducted any test identification parade nor
8
has it adduced any reliable evidence to establish the presence or
participation of the respondent in the incident dated 19.10.2018.
The respondent came to be arrested nearly eight months after the
occurrence in connection with another case, and except the
disputed memorandum and alleged recoveries, there is no
substantive evidence connecting him with the offences alleged.
The Investigating Officer (PW-12), in his cross-examination, has
also admitted several material omissions, including that he was
not part of the search party which participated in the anti-Naxalite
operation, had not visited the original place of occurrence in
connection with Crime No.113/2018, and that no independent
witness was associated during the memorandum and seizure
proceedings. These admissions materially weaken the
prosecution case.
12. Learned Amicus Curiae would also contend that the learned trial
Court has correctly applied the settled principles governing the
evidentiary value of discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act and has rightly relied upon the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 17 SCC
273, and Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(1983) 1 SCC 143, to hold that a disclosure statement by itself
cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless supported by
reliable and independent evidence establishing the nexus
between the accused and the crime. The findings recorded by the
trial Court are thus fully supported by law as well as by the
9
evidence on record. Lastly, it is submitted that while considering
an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is required to bear
in mind the well-settled principle that an acquitted accused enjoys
a reinforced presumption of innocence. Unless the findings of the
trial Court are shown to be manifestly illegal, perverse or wholly
unreasonable, interference is not warranted merely because
another view is possible. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of
Karnataka (2026 INSC 67) and Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda
v. State of Gujarat (2024 INSC 295), wherein it has been
reiterated that if the view taken by the trial Court is a possible and
reasonable view based on the evidence, the appellate Court
should refrain from reversing an order of acquittal. It is, therefore,
prayed that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to
be dismissed.
13. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
have minutely examined the entire record of the case, including
the impugned judgment of acquittal, the oral and documentary
evidence adduced before the learned Special Judge and the
findings recorded therein.
14. The principal question which falls for consideration is whether the
judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
(NIA Act), Bilaspur acquitting the respondent of the offences
10
punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 8 of the
Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and
Sections 16, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 suffers from perversity, manifest illegality or
misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 21 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
15. A careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence reveals that the
entire case against the respondent substantially rests upon the
memorandum statement allegedly recorded under Section 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act and the consequential recoveries said to
have been effected at his instance. The learned trial Court has
subjected the evidence relating to the memorandum and seizure
proceedings to close scrutiny and has found that the prosecution
has failed to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. The
evidence of PW-5 Dilip Thakur, PW-14 Vijay Kumar Mishra and
PW-12, the Investigating Officer, has been analysed threadbare
by the learned Special Judge, who has recorded cogent reasons
for holding that the prosecution witnesses have made materially
inconsistent statements regarding the manner, place and time of
recovery, preparation of seizure documents and participation in
the recovery proceedings. PW-5 has admittedly not supported the
preparation of the recovery panchnamas (Exhibits P-18 and P-19)
11
and has admitted that his signatures were obtained at the police
station. PW-14 has admitted that no independent witness was
associated with the recovery proceedings and that he had no
knowledge regarding several articles allegedly recovered. These
material discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case and
cannot be brushed aside as minor inconsistencies.
16. It is equally significant that none of the members of the police
party, who were allegedly attacked during the anti-Naxalite
operation on 19.10.2018, identified the respondent as one of the
assailants. The prosecution has neither conducted any test
identification proceedings nor led any reliable evidence to
establish the presence of the respondent at the place of
occurrence. The respondent came to be implicated nearly eight
months after the incident when he was already in custody in
another case. Except for the disputed memorandum and the
alleged recoveries, no independent evidence has been brought on
record connecting the respondent with the occurrence in question.
The Investigating Officer has himself admitted in his cross-
examination that he was not a member of the search party which
had participated in the operation on the date of the incident and
had not even visited the place of occurrence in connection with
Crime No.113/2018. These admissions substantially weaken the
prosecution case and lend support to the conclusion arrived at by
the learned trial Court.
12
17. The learned Special Judge has also rightly observed that even if
the alleged discoveries are assumed to have been proved, the
same by themselves would not conclusively establish the
participation of the respondent in the offences alleged unless the
prosecution succeeds in proving the necessary nexus between
the recovered articles and the commission of the crime. Discovery
of an article pursuant to a disclosure statement is only one
incriminating circumstance and cannot, in the absence of other
reliable evidence, constitute the sole basis for recording a
conviction. The prosecution was under a legal obligation to
establish, by cogent and convincing evidence, that the respondent
was one of the persons who had participated in the alleged attack
on the police party and had consciously possessed the prohibited
arms, ammunition and explosive substances. The learned Special
Judge has rightly found that such foundational facts have
remained unproved.
18. The learned trial Court has relied upon the principles laid down by
the Supreme Court in Mani (supra) and Mohd. Abdul Hafeez
(supra), while holding that a disclosure statement under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act is a weak piece of evidence and
cannot, by itself, sustain a conviction in the absence of
independent corroboration. We find ourselves in agreement with
the said view. The appreciation of evidence undertaken by the
learned Special Judge is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the
settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence.
13
19. It is a settled principle of law that an appellate Court dealing with
an appeal against acquittal possesses full power to re-appreciate
the evidence; however, such power is required to be exercised
with circumspection. Unless the findings recorded by the trial
Court are demonstrated to be perverse, manifestly illegal or
wholly unreasonable, interference is unwarranted merely because
another view is possible on the evidence. The respondent, having
secured an acquittal after full-fledged trial, enjoys a reinforced
presumption of innocence. In the present case, the findings
recorded by the learned Special Judge are founded upon a
comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot
be said to be either perverse or impossible. On the contrary, the
view taken by the learned trial Court is a reasonable and plausible
view emerging from the evidence available on record.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the appellant/State has failed to demonstrate any
perversity, patent illegality or miscarriage of justice in the
impugned judgment of acquittal so as to warrant interference by
this Court. The principles governing interference in an appeal
against acquittal have been succinctly reiterated by the Supreme
Court in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa (supra) and Bhupatbhai
Bachubhai Chavda (supra), wherein it has been held that if the
view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonably possible view
based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court ought not to
substitute its own opinion merely because another view is also
14
possible. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of
the present case, we find no compelling reason to interfere with
the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned Special
Judge.
21. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves
to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 19.09.2025
passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur in
Special Case (NIA) No.09/2019 acquitting the respondent of the
charges levelled against him, is affirmed.
22. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the
concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
