State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hannuram Baghel
2021 Latest Caselaw 3557 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                            NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRMP No. 1373 of 2021

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station- Kondagaon, District Kodagaon
(C.G.).
                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

Hannuram Baghel S/o Shri Chamru Ram Baghel, Aged about 52 years, R/o House
No.16, Ward No.01, Schoolpara Ranapal, Police Station Pharasgaon, District
Kondagaon (C.G.).

                                                                    --Respondent

For Petitioner                 :     Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate
For Respondent                 :     None


                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                              Order on Board

08/12/2021

     Heard on admission.

1. The instant CRMP under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been preferred for grant of special leave to appeal against the

judgment of acquittal dated 06/09/2021passed in Criminal Case No.

260/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Hannuram Baghel) by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon whereby the respondent/accused has

been acquitted from the charges framed under Sections 279 and 338 of the

IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21/03/2018, one Shivnandan Singh Rajput

(henceforth 'the Complainant') along with his wife and a friend Parmanand

Agrawal came to Jampadar, Kondagaon from Dhamtari for attending the

marriage function of his relative's uncle. In the evening at about 7:15 pm

after the marriage, he along with his wife and friend was going on a

motorcycle of his brother-in-law towards Vishrampuri. On the way a white

colored Maruti Ritz Car bearing No. CG27 A/2500 which was being driven

by the respondent/accused in rash and negligent manner, hit the silencer of

his motorcycle due to which the Complainant, his wife and his friend fell

down resulting into fracture of right thigh to the complainant. The

Complainant lodged a report in Police Station Kondagaon about the

incident. The matter was investigated and the respondent/accused was

arrested by the police. A charge-sheet against the accused person was filed.

After framing of charges, the prosecution examined witnesses in support of

its case and also recorded the statement of accused person. After

completion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon

passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent/accused person

from the charges framed against him. Hence, this petition.

3. Counsel for the State submits that the judgment, findings and order of

acquittal passed by the Court below is illegal, improper and incorrect and

the same is liable to be set-aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate has

committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and law points. He

prays for grant of special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State and perused the

impugned judgment minutely.

5. Vide para 13 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has discussed about

the statements of witnesses namely Shivnandan (PW1), Parmanand (PW2)

and Binda Thakur (PW3) who all were traveling on the alleged motorcycle

on the date of incident. Shivnandan (PW1) in his statement has clearly

deposed that wheel cap of the car which was being driven by the accused,

got separated and hit the motorcycle. He further deposed that if the wheel

cap had not hit the motorcycle, they would not have fallen down from the

motorcycle. This witness has also admitted in para 6 that he was not having

any knowledge that the car which was being driven by the accused was

punctured and uncontrolled.

6. The trial Court has also found material contradictions and omissions in the

statements of the prosecution witnesses and for the aforesaid infirmities the

said Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has

failed to prove the charges against the accused under the aforementioned

sections.

7. It is an established law when two views are possible on the basis of two

divergent versions given by the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should be

given to the accused. So, on this principle this Court is of the view that the

order of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference

and the same is affirmed.

8. Accordingly, the CRMP is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

rahul