Chattisgarh High Court
The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kuldeep Narang on 3 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1849 of 2022
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Kharora,
District Raipur (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
Kuldeep Narang, S/o Tomanlal Narang, aged about 23
years, R/o Keshla Darbar Tent House, P.S. Kharora,
District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Petitioner/State : Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A.
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
03/01/2023
1. Heard on I.A.No.01/2022, for condonation of delay in
filing the CRMP.
2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2022 is allowed and
delay in filing the CRMP stands condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. The present petition has been filed by the State seeking
leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and
order dated 25.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in
Criminal Case No.2918/2017 acquitting the
accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 279
and 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code
5. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Chamanlal
Markandey lodged a report at police station alleging
therein that on 09.01.2017, when he was going towards
Raipur on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04-
LL-9188 as pillion rider, at the relevant time, vehicle Tata
Magic bearing registration No.CG-04-JD-5446, which was
being driven by accused/respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed the vehicle of complainant
from behind as a result of which Parasram Markandey
died. Based on this report, FIR under Sections 279,
304-A of IPC was registered against accused/respondent.
6. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was
filed by the police under Sections 279, 304-A IPC
followed by framing of charge by the Court below
accordingly.
7. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material available on record
has acquitted the accused/respondent as mentioned in
para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to
appeal.
8. Counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has
erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondent even
when there is ample evidence against him.
9. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the
material available on record.
10. In this case, even after granting sufcient opportunity
from the year 1997 to 2022, the prosecution has failed
to secure the presence of complainant and failed to
adduce their evidence & therefore, looking to the
pendency of the case, the opportunity of prosecution
evidence was closed. Non-examination of complainant or
the other prosecution witnesses who were present at the
time of incident would lead to draw an adverse inference
and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. The learned trial Court, after considering the fact
situation of the case, has come to the conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. I do not find any illegality in the order
impugned acquitting the accused/respondent. Even
otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed to
examine any witness before the trial Court. Furthermore,
in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very
limited and interference can only be made if finding
recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived
at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the
irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such
circumstance is there warranting interference by this
Court.
12. Accordingly, the CRMP preferred by the State/applicant is
bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission
stage itself leading to refusal of leave to appeal as
sought for by the State.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
pkd
