[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Vivek Kumar Ghritlahre on 15 April, 2026
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:17077
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR NAFR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.04.15
17:28:11
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 399 of 2018
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Incharge Police Station Tikrapara,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
...Appellant
versus
• Vivek Kumar Ghritlahre, S/o Ramlal Ghritlahre, aged about 22 Years,
R/o Mahatma Gandhi Nagar Amlidih, Police Station New Rajendra
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy Government
Advocate along with Mr. Rajkumar Sahu,
Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
15.04.2026
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against
the judgment dated 07.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Case No. 1827/2013,
whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.06.2013, at about 10:30
a.m., complainant/PW-1- Ramdayal Dahariya lodged a Dehati Nalishi
(Ex.P-1), stating that on 22.06.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., while he was
walking on the road along with the deceased- Dukalu Ram Maheshwar,
near Sejbahar Society, respondent/accused, while driving a motorcycle
bearing registration No. CG-04-SC-4135 (hereinafter referred to as the
"offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
deceased from behind. Thereafter, the injured/deceased was taken to
the hospital by ambulance, but he died on the way due to the injuries
sustained. On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), an FIR was
registered against the accused/respondent.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial
Court. The learned trial Court framed charge against the
accused/respondent under Section 304-A IPC. The
accused/respondent denied the charge, abjured the guilt, and prayed
for trial.
4. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and
appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment
acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge leveled against him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has
erred in acquitting the accused/respondent despite there being
sufficient and cogent evidence on record. He further submits that the
prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
have clearly stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the accused/respondent. It is, therefore, prayed that
the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the
accused/respondent be convicted accordingly.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment and submits that there is no cogent evidence on record to
establish that the accused/respondent was driving the offending vehicle
in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident. He further
submits that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution. It is, therefore, contended that the learned trial Court
has rightly acquitted the respondent of the said charge and the same
calls for no interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State
of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of
interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-
"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by
invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to
consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a
possible one, particularly when evidence on record has
been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal
adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively
slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the
accused does not get weakened but only strengthened.
Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the
accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on
the accepted legal parameters."
9. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 22.06.2013 at about
7:30 p.m. near Sejbahar Motor Stand, and that the deceased- Dukalu
Ram Maheshwar died in the said accident. The only question that
arises for consideration is whether the accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent driving of the accused/respondent.
10. PW-1 Ramdayal Dahariya, complainant, stated in his deposition that on
22.06.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., deceased- Dukalu Ram Maheshwar
along with two other persons was walking towards his house on the side
of the road, and he was walking a little behind them. He further stated
that as soon as the deceased reached the road in front of the
Co-operative Society, the accused/respondent came from behind on the
offending vehicle, driving in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed
the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. He also stated that the injured was taken to Mekahara
Hospital by ambulance, and the accused, who had also sustained
injuries, was taken in the same ambulance. He also stated that
someone from the crowd present at the spot informed the police.
However, in cross-examination, he failed to disclose the names of the
other persons accompanying the deceased, and his version is not
corroborated by any reliable independent evidence.
11. PW-4 Prakash, son of the deceased, admitted that he did not see the
accident and came to know about it from PW-1 Ramdayal over the
phone. He also admitted that he had not seen the accused at the time of
the incident and that the details about the vehicle were told to him by
PW-1 Ramdayal. Therefore, his evidence is hearsay and does not help
the prosecution.
12. PW-6 Smt. Manbha, wife of the deceased, stated that she had no direct
knowledge of the incident and came to know about it through others.
She further stated that no person from her locality informed her as to
who caused the accident, how it occurred, or when it took place. Thus,
she has not supported the prosecution case.
13. PW-7 Hemlal Sonwani did not support the prosecution case and stated
that he had not witnessed the incident. He also failed to identify the
accused or the vehicle involved in the accident. Thus, his testimony
does not advance the case of the prosecution.
14. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no
reliable or trustworthy witness to the incident. The witnesses examined
by the prosecution are either hearsay in nature or have not supported
the prosecution case. Further, from the evidence of PW-1 Ramdayal
Dahariya, it appears that while the deceased was crossing the road, the
accident occurred from behind, and in such a situation, the deceased
should have been more careful and vigilant while crossing the road. It is
pertinent to mention here that the accident occurred on 22.06.2013 at
about 7:30 p.m., and although the police reached the spot soon
thereafter, but the report (Ex.P-1) was lodged only on 23.06.2013 at
about 10:30 a.m., for which no satisfactory explanation has been
furnished by the prosecution. This delay further makes the prosecution
case doubtful. The learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the
evidence on record, has concluded that the prosecution failed to
establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence beyond
reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused/respondent of
the charge levelled against him.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus
State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could
be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result
in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of
challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that
two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused
shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it
specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial
Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity
or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra),
the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and
possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned trial Court.
17. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the
acquittal of accused/respondent is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh
