[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ashok Kumar Yadav on 26 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
MANPREET
KAUR 2026:CGHC:9961-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed by
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.02.27
13:11:29 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1367 of 2022
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, District -
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shankarlal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o
High School Sector Cooperative Line Ward No.09, Dalli Rajhar At
Present R/o Shaheed Chowk Ward No. 14 Dallirajhara, District Balod
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
26.02.2026
1. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance to
the Court's order dated 19.02.2026, the accused / respondent
Ashok Kumar Yadav is present before this Court.
2. By way of present petition filed under Section 378(3) of the
Cr.P.C., the State has sought leave to appeal against the
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 08.04.2022 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case
No. 22/2021 by which, the respondents / accused have been
acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 302 of the
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, on 26.04.2021 a marriage
ceremony was being held at the house of Balsingh Guruji in
Village Harrotola, Police Station Mohla, District Rajnandgaon. On
the same night at about 11:30 p.m., the complainant Chainsingh
Koreti along with deceased Thansingh Tekam was returning home
after attending the ceremony. It was alleged that due to a previous
dispute during the marriage function, the accused Ashok Kumar
Yadav came driving Swift car bearing registration No. CG 07 MB
8692 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. It
was further alleged that after moving some distance, the accused
reversed the vehicle with an intention to kill, resulting in grievous
internal injuries to Thansingh Tekam, who died on the way to the
hospital.
4. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, Dehati
Nalishi and Dehati Merg Intimation were registered and thereafter
formal FIR was recorded. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused.
5. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case.
However, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the
learned trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused
the death of the deceased by driving the vehicle in the alleged
manner and consequently acquitted the accused of the charges.
Hence this appeal.
6. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of
acquittal is erroneous, unreasonable and contrary to the settled
principles of law. The learned trial Court has committed a grave
error in acquitting the respondent from the offences charged, as
the findings recorded are contrary to the evidence available on
record. It is contended that the trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the consistent and cogent statements of the eye-
witnesses, particularly P.W.-1 (Chain Singh Koreti) and P.W.-9
(Narottam Das Tekam). P.W.-1 has categorically deposed before
the Court that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and deliberately dashed him and the deceased
owing to a prior dispute at the wedding ceremony, as a result of
which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on vital parts and
succumbed thereto. His testimony has been duly corroborated by
P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-9 and P.W.-12. It is
further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the
medical evidence of Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W.-8), who clearly
opined that the death occurred due to haemorrhagic shock
resulting from rupture of vital organs, which supports the
prosecution version. The evidence of P.W.-2, particularly para 10
of his cross-examination, also establishes that there was a prior
dispute between the accused and the deceased at the marriage
function, providing motive and showing that the act was
intentional. The statement of P.W.-1 recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-3) has also not been properly considered, wherein
he clearly implicated the accused in the commission of the
offence. It is argued that the cumulative evidence on record
clearly establishes that due to the previous dispute, the accused
intentionally drove the vehicle in a manner so as to cause the
death of the deceased, thereby attracting the offence under
Section 302 IPC. The finding of the trial Court regarding alleged
contradictions and omission in the prosecution case, as well as
doubt about the identity of the driver, is perverse and
unsustainable, as the witnesses have consistently identified the
accused and attributed the act to him. Hence, it is respectfully
submitted that the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is
unjust, unwarranted and bad in law, and the same deserves to be
set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports
the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court
has rightly acquitted the respondent after proper appreciation of
the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. It is
contended that there are material contradictions and omissions in
the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, and their testimonies
are not reliable to establish intention or identity of the driver
beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that no
independent and cogent evidence has been brought on record to
prove that the respondent intentionally caused the death of the
deceased, and at best, the case may fall within the ambit of rash
and negligent driving. The medical and ocular evidence do not
conclusively establish the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Therefore, in an appeal against acquittal, where the view taken by
the trial Court is a possible and reasonable view, no interference
is warranted.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment along with the trial Court record annexed with
the present appeal.
9. The learned Special Judge, after detailed appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused by
holding that though several procedural steps were undertaken
during investigation, such as seizure of cloth from the Swift car
(Ex.P-23), issuance of notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for
production of caste certificate, correspondence seeking
certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, recording of
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and forwarding of seized
articles to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, there
were material deficiencies in the prosecution case. The
Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination that the seized
vehicle did not belong to the accused and that the owner, Santosh
Sahare, was neither examined nor was his statement recorded to
ascertain who had taken the vehicle on the date of the incident.
There were also contradictions regarding the number of persons
present in the vehicle, as one witness stated that four persons
were inside, yet the investigation did not clarify their identities or
record their statements. The Court further observed that no Test
Identification Parade was conducted to firmly establish the identity
of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. The trial Court also found that the evidence of the alleged eye-
witnesses, particularly P.W.-1 and P.W.-9, was not wholly reliable,
especially in view of the fact that the incident occurred at night
and there was no clear evidence regarding the source of light
enabling proper identification. In cross-examination, P.W.-1
admitted that he did not see the accused getting into the car and
that the vehicle had come from behind, thereby raising doubt as to
whether he could clearly identify the driver. Further, there were
inconsistencies regarding the alleged prior dispute at the wedding
venue, including description of a tall, fair-skinned boy, which did
not match the accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed
to conclusively establish that the accused was driving the vehicle
at the relevant time or that he intentionally caused the death of the
deceased. In view of these material contradictions, investigative
lapses, and absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the
learned Special Judge extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused and acquitted him of the charges under Section 302 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
directing his release from judicial custody unless required in any
other case.
11. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court,
acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do
not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
seeking grant of leave to appeal.
12. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in
an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the
view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it
is not permissible to interfere with the finding of
acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal,
merely because the Appellate Court finds the way
of conviction to be more probable. The interference
would be warranted only if the view taken is not
possible at all."
13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the CRMP seeking for leave to
appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
14. A copy of the trial Court record has already been annexed with the
petition along with memo of submission.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
