State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mithun Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 63 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                             NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           Cr.M.P No. 625 of 2021

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dantewada, District Dantewada
Chhattisgarh.                                     ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus
Mithun Kumar S/o Gopal Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Ward,
House Of Dhirendra Pratap Singh Infront Of Bsnl Office, Police Station
Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh  ---Respondent

For Petitioner/State: Shri Gurudev I Sharan, G.A. For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board 05.01.2022

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

10.02.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada (CG) in

Criminal Case No.131/2019 whereby, the accused/Respondent was acquitted

from the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 03.01.2021 at around

11.00 p.m, the accused/Respondent, while driving Bolero pickup bearing

registration No.CG 18/H-1118 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the

motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 04/DP 8805 near Surana Mall,

Aawarabhata, resulting in the death of one Shatrughan Verma.

3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as

14 witnesses and the Respondent had adduced no evidence.

4. The trial Court has, in the impugned judgment, while discussing the

entire evidence, opined that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not

sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.

5. Sharat Chandra Shukla (PW-1) in his statement has only stated that

the accused was driving his vehicle at a high speed in a rash a negligent

manner at the time of the accident. In the cross-examination, he could not

state about the speed of the vehicle and only a vague statement was made

that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

6. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC

493, it was held that merely because the truck was being driven at a "high

speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself and

there is no other evidence available in the case in hand which establishes that

the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

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.

7. 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