Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sourabh Agrawal on 10 January, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr.M.P No. 1555 of 2018
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Incharge, Police Station Kotwali, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Vers
1. Sourabh Agrawal S/o Shri Govind Ram Agrawal Aged About 34 Years
Occupation-Business, R/o- Village Sahdevpali, Chowki Jutemill, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. Salim Sahjada S/o Gulam Rasul Aged About 52 Years Occupation- Private Job,
R/o- Village Bajiraopara, Chowki Jutemill, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner/State: Ms. Reena Singh PL.
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J
Order On Board
10.01.2022
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 27.01.2018 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (CG) in Criminal Case
No.554/2014 whereby, the accused/Respondents were acquitted from the
offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents were charged for the
offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 IPC in connection with Crime
No.30/2014 registered at P.S Kotwali, District Raigarh. The main allegation
against the Respondents is that being the Manager and Machinery Manager of
the Company, they have not made proper arrangements for security and safety
while taking work from the deceased Vasudev Sahu, due to which, the deceased
received serious injuries and ultimately died during the course of the treatment.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7
witnesses whereas, the defence has not adduced any evidence.
4. By way of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has appreciated the
evidence and acquitted the Respondents from the aforesaid charges.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/State submits that the trial Court has
not appreciated the evidence in a proper manner. Dr. Tarun Kumar Tondar
(PW-1) has clearly opined that the death was caused due to head injury. He
further submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, improper and unjust
and deserves to be set aside and prays for grant of leave to Appeal.
6. Dr. Tarun Kumar Tondar (PW-1) has conducted postmortem on the body of
the deceased on 12.01.2014 and opined that the cause of death was head injury.
Bhupendra (PW-2), Mehattar Lal Chouhan (PW-6) and Rupendra Jha (PW-7) are
the employees of the Oil Refinery Plant of the accused/Respondents.
Respondent No.1/accused is the owner of the Plant and Respondent No.2 was
working as the Plant Incharge at the time of the incident. The material witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile.
Bhupnedra (PW-2) has stated that he has not given the statement (Ex.P-2) to the
police to the effect that the said incident took place due to improper maintenance
of the Oil Plant. This witness has categorically stated that in the Plant, a caution
board has been affixed on the date of incident to avoid use of any inflammable
articles. He has further stated that the deceased used to smoke bidi and he
himself was negligent and responsible for the said incident. Md. Ibrahim (PW-3)
registered merg intimation (Ex.P-3). Dr. DK Toppo (PW-4) informed the police
about the medico legal case (Ex.P-4). Vishikeshan Sao (PW-5) was not present
in the Plant. The prosecution has failed to prove sufficient and clinching
evidence to convict the accused persons that they are grossly negligent due to
which, the accident occurred.
7. 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.
8. In view of above and after re-assessing the entire evidence, this Court has
no reason to substitute a contrary finding. Accordingly, the instant Petition has
no substance and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
JUDGE
Priya
