State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chandaka Ram Naidu
2022 Latest Caselaw 109 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                         NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           Cr.M.P No. 11 of 2022

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Kondagaon (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus
Chandaka Ram Naidu S/o Tavdu Aged About 35 Years R/o - Bhagirathipuram
B.C. Colony, Police Vijaynagaram (A.P.)                 ---Respondent

For Petitioner/State: Shri BP Banjare, Dy. G.A.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board 07.01.2022

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C, 1973 for

grant of leave to Appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated

08.09.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon (CG) in

Criminal Case No.192/2018 whereby, the accused/Respondent was acquitted

from the offence punishable under Sections 283, 338 and 304-A IPC.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the findings recorded

by the trial Court are improper, unjust and bad in law. The trial Court has

failed to appreciate the evidence of Sulo Markam, who has stated in her Court

statement that the incident took place near Jailal Dhabha where the accused/

Respondent had parked his truck carelessly without turning on the parking

and signal lights, as a result of which, the motorcycle of the deceased collided

with the said truck.

3. Having considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the State/

Petitioner and also having gone through the statements recorded by the

prosecution, this Court opines that the trial Court has appreciated the

evidence in a proper manner and has rightly come to the conclusion that the

deceased himself had an opportunity to avoid the said accident as the vehicle

was parked on the road and the other vehicles were also moving at the same

place.

4. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is one of the possible

views. It is settled law that if two views are possible, then the view which is

favourable to the accused should be accepted.

5. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by

the trial Court is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the instant

Petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya