Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rakesh @ Gopi Patle on 27 March, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 199 of 2015
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 20.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON 27.03.2026
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gudhiyari, Distt. Raipur
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant
ANJANI
versus
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.27
15:57:24
Rakesh @ Gopi Patle S/o Chandrashekhar Patle Aged About 20 Years R/o
+0530
Malevada, Post Charegaon, P.S. Lamta, Distt. Balaghat Madhya Pradesh.
Present Address Ashok Sahu, Pragati Nagar, Ashok Nagar Thana Gudhiyari,
Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) C A V Judgment
1. This Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant / State under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 23.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 31/2013, whereby the learned trial trial Court acquitted the respondent herein of the charge under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the MV Act)
2. Brief facts as projected by the appellant/State are that on 31.12.2012 at about 8.00 pm, the injured Ramesh Kumar Markandey met with a motor accident near Gayatri Hospital caused by the respondent by 2 driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG/04/CE/2955 (offending vehic le in short) in a rash and negligent manner. On receipt of such information, the complainant Umesh Kumar Markandey lodged a report, upon which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P.8 based on Ex.P.1, which is a Dehati Nalishi. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.2, the offending vehicle was seized vide Ex.P.3, medical reports were obtained and statements of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the respondent/accused was arrested on 11.01.2013 vide Ex.P.4.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The respondent abjured the guilt and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 08 documents in support of case of the prosecution. Statement of accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In his defence, the respondent examined none nor exhibited any such documents.
5. Learned J.M.F.C., after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 23.05.2014, acquitted the respondent of the charges as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit the prosecution case is based on the statement of P.W.3 Ramesh Kumar Markandeyy and the prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and despite that, the learned trial Court has 3 committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial Court, after properly appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the said charges. He would further submit that the injured P.W.3 Ramesh Kumar Markandeyy has also been prosecuted under Sections 279, 337 of IPC for the said accident and that, there were no other eye-witnesses to support the prosecution case, therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:-
25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened.
Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
10. As regards the alleged involvement of the respondent in the crime in question, admittedly, no eye-witness was present at the time of 4 accident excepting P.W.3 Ramesh Kumar Markandey, who has stated that the accused was under the influence of liquor and was driving the motorcycle in such condition and that, due to head on collision between the two motorcycles, the accident occurred in the middle of the road. According to Dr. Nilesh Pagariya (P.W.6) and Dr. Rajeev Sahu, (P.W.8) as well as the medical reports (Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.9), the injured Ramesh Kumar Markandey sustained serious and simple injuries and it appears that those injuries are not dangerous to his body. Although the complainant Umesh Kumar Markandey (P.W.2) has stated that the accused was under the influence of liquor while driving the motorcycle at a high speed and due to this, the accused hit the motorcycle of his father from front side, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see the accident on the spot, therefore, he did not identify the accused. The other prosecution witnesses Santosh Kumar Yadaf (P.W.4), Lakhanlal (P.W.5) and Nagendra Singh (P.W.7) are the witnesses who have merely stated about the accident as per the instructions of the injured Ramesh Kumar Markandey and Umesh Kumar Markandey.
11. A bare perusal of the evidence of above witnesses, it is evident that the statement of injured witness Ramesh Kumar Markandey (P.W.3) that the accused was drunken condition and caused the accident is not reliable, as this fact was not mentioned in his earlier police statement and in his main examination. There is also no clear identification of the accused at the time of the incident. Regarding rash and negligent driving by the respondent/accused, the evidence on record does not conclusively prove that the accident occurred due to the accused's fault and in fact, record does not clearly establish whose fault caused the 5 accident.
12. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/respondent caused the accident by rash and negligent driving, as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charge levelled against him.
13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 279, 338 IPC and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 of the MV Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
14. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani