Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Anil Kumar Singh on 16 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed 2025:CGHC:17528
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1066 of 2025
State of Chhattisgarh, through - Police Station Kotra Road, District - Raigarh
(C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Singh S/o Daulat Singh Rajput, aged about 24 years, R/o Lormi,
Police Station Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)
... Respondent
For State/Appellant : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
16/04/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of
delay occurred in filing of the appeal.
2. Upon due consideration, the application (I.A. No. 01/2025) stands allowed
and the delay of 369 days is hereby condoned.
3. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section
419 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2023 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)
in Criminal Case No. 207/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections
279 & 338 of the IPC.
4. Prosecution case in brief is that Shrikant Kushwaha/complainant (PW-02)
has lodged a written complaint before the Police Station Kotra Road,
District Raigarh (C.G.) that his brother-in-law Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-
03) on the date of the incident i.e., on 07.06.2016 at about 22:15 p.m.
while returning from the Jindal Plant in his motorcycle whose registration
No. is CG-11-C-4440 near the STP Gate, at the time the
respondent/accused was driving his Maruti Car bearing Vehicle No. CG
AA 6113 in a rash and negligent manner and he dashed the brother-in-law
of the complainant from the back side and caused an accident due to
which the injured Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-03) sustained grievous
injuries.
5. After completion of due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet has
been filed under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC and after evaluating the
evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the
aforesaid charges. Hence, this leave petition has been filed to file an
acquittal appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State would submit that the prosecution
has duly established the charge against the respondent/accused, however
the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. So,
the finding arrived by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law
and the learned counsel for the State/appellant prays to grant the leave to
file the acquittal appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the
documents annexed with petition carefully.
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the eye witness namely Amarnath Singh
(PW-04) was declared hostile and he has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has categorically deposed in his cross-examination that he
was not able to identify the respondent/accused when his photo was being
shown in the trial Court and he could not identify the vehicle colour,
vehicle number and by whom the said offending vehicle was driven at the
time of the incident.
9. The injured witness Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-03) though he has named
the accused/respondent who dashed to him from the back side, however he
was able to recall the vehicle number, but he has not seen the offender on
the spot as he became unconscious and the F.I.R. has been lodged by his
brother-in-law viz. Shrikant Kushwaha (PW-02) "Jeeja" and he has also
not seen the incident.
10.So, the prosecution has failed to prove any direct evidence and even the
case has not been established from the circumstantial evidence. As such,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges
levelled against him.
11. Resultantly, no case is made out for grant of leave and the same is refused,
in consequence, instant Cr.M.P is bereft of any substance and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
U. K. Raju
