Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Surendra Pawle on 7 May, 2025
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed
by SUNITA 2025:CGHC:21074
GOSWAMI
Date: 2025.05.07
18:39:16 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 205 of 2021
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
Surendra Pawle S/o Rajkumar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Jamgala
Police Station Lakhanpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellant :Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government Advocate
and Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent :Shri Pawas Sharma, Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
07.05.2025
1. Heard on admission.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and
propriety of the judgment dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Case No.320/2017,
whereby, the respondent- Surendra Pawle has been acquitted with regard to
the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (three counts) and 338 (four
counts) of IPC.
3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been
charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279,
337 (three counts) and 338 (four counts) of IPC. It is alleged by the
prosecution that on 07.11.2016 at about 17.20 hrs., the accused was driving
the vehicle in question, i.e. City Bus, bearing registration No.CG 15 AB 0476
in a rash and negligent manner in public place and, on account of the alleged
rash and negligent driving, it caused accident, owing to which, some of the
passengers, namely, Smt. Rita Toppo, Kamla Bai, Vivek Minj, Mona Rajwade,
Krishna Thakur and Priti Krispotta, sustained grievous injuries and, on the
basis of the alleged allegations, the alleged offences mentioned herein-above
were framed against the respondent, which was denied by him and claimed
to be tried.
4. In order to establish the alleged fact that the vehicle in question was
being driven on the said fateful day, i.e. 07.11.2016 around 17.20 hrs. in a
rash and negligent manner, one Vidyacharan was examined as PW-1, who
stated at para 1 of his evidence that the alleged vehicle was being driven by
its driver at a very high speed, owing to which, it was tilted down. In his
cross-examination, it was stated by him that when an enquiry was made by
the concerned Police, he has not disclosed the name of the driver of the
alleged offending vehicle.
5. Priti Krispotta (PW-2) was, however, unable to state the number of the
vehicle in question and stated that because of its high speed, it was tilted
down, owing to which, she has sustained grievous injuries on her left leg. It,
however, appears from her cross-examination at para 4 that she was unable
to state, who was driving the alleged vehicle at that particular time.
6. Mona Rajwade (PW-3) stated that on the fateful day, the alleged
offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent - Surendra Pawle and,
on account of its driving, the alleged vehicle was tilted down, owing to which,
her left leg was got fractured. It, however, appears from her cross-
examination, particularly at para 4, that when she was enquired by the
concerned Police, she has not stated that the alleged vehicle was being
driven by him without his control and stated further that she has not disclosed
the name of the driver of the offending vehicle.
7. Kamla Bai (PW-4) has denied the fact in her cross-examination that the
vehicle in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its
driver, nor was unable to state the number of the alleged offending vehicle.
8. Vivek Minj (PW-5), who was also coming by the said offending vehicle
on the said fateful day, stated that when he was enquired by the police, it was
not informed that the alleged accident was occurred, because of rash and
negligent driving of its dirver, nor was aware that who was driving the alleged
vehicle, as reflected from his cross-examination at para 3.
9. Krishna Thakur (PW-6), who was coming by the alleged offending
vehicle from Ambikapur to Lakhanpur, stated that the vehicle in question was
being driven by its driver in a moderate speed and denied the fact,
specifically at para 2, that it was being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver.
10. Mohd. Imam @ Raju (PW-8) was a Mechanic and according to him, the
vehicle in question was tilted down on the fateful day, because of its
mechanical fault.
11. Rita Toppo (PW-13) was the another passenger of the alleged
offending vehicle, but has stated in her evidence at para 3, that it was not
being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Other prosecution witnesses
are formal in nature.
12. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it is
apparent that none of them have stated that on the fateful day, i.e. 07.11.2016
at 17.20 hrs., the alleged offending vehicle was being driven rashly and
negligently by its driver and, the trial Court, after considering the evidence
led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in
acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to
call for any interference in this appeal.
13. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
sunita
