State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kanhaiya
2022 Latest Caselaw 59 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Acquittal Appeal No.84 of 2011


State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa (CG)
                                                                ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
Kanhaiya, S/o Sampuran Das Manikpuri, aged about 38 years, R/o Khaira,
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa                     -----Respondent

For Appellant/State:                    Shri Wasim Miyan, PL.
For Respondent:                         Shri HP Agrawal, Advocate.

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

05.01.2022

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated

30.08.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janjgir, District

Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No.10/2010 whereby the said Court has

acquitted the Respondent from the charges punishable under Sections 279

and 338 IPC and under Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on account of rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.CG 11A 6049,

fatal injury was caused to one Suryanarayana (PW-3).

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many

as 8 witnesses.

4. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) has stated in his police statement (Ex.P-3) that

upon information of the accident, he reached the spot but in the Court

statement, he denied the said fact. KK. Rathore (PW-2), brother of the

Complainant had lodged the FIR (Ex.P-2) on the same day of the accident

i.e. on 14.10.2009 at 20.10 hours at P.S Balauda against the unknown

tractor driver. Injured Suryanarayan Rathore (PW-3) has, in his cross-

examination, stated that he has identified the driver of the offending tractor

but if the said fact is not recorded in his police statement, then he is

unaware of the reason. He has further stated that after the accident, his

brother went to meet Omprakash Agrawal and when he denied that any

accident had occurred with the said vehicle, then he went to meet Durga

Rathore. Suryanarayan Rathore (PW-3) denied that vehicle of Durga

Prasad was not insured, therefore, a false case against vehicle of

Omprakash Agrawal was made out. Suryunarayan (PW-3) has further

stated that he has deposed before the Court what he has been advised by

his Advocate.

5. Looking to the entire evidence it is evident that as there was no

independent reliable witness of the accident and Suryanarayana (PW-3),

the injured cannot be fully relied upon, therefore, the trial Court, after

appreciating the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution, reached to

the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the

accused, therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is one of the possible

views, and this Court has no reason to substitute a contrary view.

6. Accordingly, the finding arrived at by the trial Court is not liable to be

interfered with and consequently, the Appeal is liable to be and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya