State Of Chhattisgarh vs Manharan Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 1134 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                        NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CRMP No. 375 of 2022

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Balodabazar
     Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

                                                              ---- Applicant

                                  Versus

    Manharan Yadav S/o Dularva Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o
     Karekel Khurd Police Station Pateva, District Mahasamund.

                                                            ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Order On Board

03/03/2022 :

1. The State has preferred an application for grant of Leave to Appeal

under Section 378 (3) of the CrPC against the judgment of acquittal

dated 8.1.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.1089/2017 by the Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Baloda Bazar, acquitting the respondent of the

charges punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304 (A) of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.11.2017 at about 17.30

hours the accused was driving his vehicle bearing registration No.CG-

04 T/9372 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle

being driven by deceased Bansilal. Due to the said accident, Chhotelal

suffered simple injuries and during treatment Bansilal died in the

hospital. The informant Bansilal lodged an FIR at Police Station Palari

for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has

erred in acquitting the respondent from the offences charged and has

failed to consider the statements of eyewitnesses. Therefore, the

finding arrived at by the trial Court is patently illegal. Hence it is

prayed that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record

minutely.

5. Chhotelal (PW-1) is the injured witness. He has stated that on the date

of the incident, he was returning from the village Rohasi to village

Udan with the deceased Bansi. Near the cricket ground when Bansi

was turning his motorcycle, the said accident took place. In cross-

examination, he admits that the incident happened in the middle of the

road. He also admits that deceased Bansi suddenly turned his vehicle

and the driver of Bolero vehicle, to avoid the accident applied the

brakes.

6. Bhim Rao Sahu (PW-7) and Uttam Sinha (PW-8) have deposed that the

accident was not happened in the middle of the road. Though they have

stated that the car driver was driving his vehicle in a very high speed

and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, but the police has recorded

their statements under Section 161 CrPC belatedly i.e. about one month

after the accident. However, Chhotelal (PW-1), who is an injured

witness, himself stated that to avoid the accident, the driver of another

vehicle applied the brakes and due to the act of the deceased, as he

suddenly turned his motorcycle, the accident occurred.

7. Therefore, considering the inconsistency in the statements, the trial

Court arrived at the conclusion to acquit the accused of the charges

alleged. This Court is also of the view that such finding is not perverse.

It is established law that when two views are possible, then the same

cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the leave cannot be granted.

8. In the result, the instant CrMP deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve