State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hiralal
2026 Latest Caselaw 934 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hiralal on 24 March, 2026

                                                           1




                                                                               2026:CGHC:14029
         Digitally
         signed by
         AKHILESH                                                                           NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR   Date:
         2026.03.24
         16:54:33               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
         +0530


                                               ACQA No. 204 of 2015
                      •   State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police
                          Station Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                       ...Appellant


                                                        versus
                      •   Hiralal, S/o Horilal, aged about 26 Years, R/o Katghora, District Korba,
                          Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                   ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Judgment on Board

24.03.2026

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against

the judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba in Criminal Case No.

1886/2000, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the

offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal

Code (for short, "IPC") by extending the benefit of doubt.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.10.2000 at about 1:00

p.m., respondent/accused- Hiralal was driving a truck bearing

registration No. CIL-5338 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') near

village Tanakhar and at the relevant time, several labourers were

travelling in the offending vehicle. It is alleged that the respondent

drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused

it to overturn, as a result of which, Bhuwan Singh sustained serious

injuries and subsequently died, and other persons travelling in the

offending vehicle also sustained injuries. On the basis of the report

(Ex.P-4) lodged by PW-2 Shaniram at Police Station Katghora, an

offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against the

respondent. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed

before the trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/respondent

under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. The accused/respondent denied

the charges, 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 charges leveled against him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned 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 duly supported the case of the

prosecution and have clearly stated that the accident occurred due to

the fault of the driver/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 accused/respondent was driving the offending vehicle in

a rash or negligent manner. He further submits that the prosecution

witnesses have themselves admitted that they were not aware of the

speed of the offending vehicle. It is, therefore, contended that the

learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the

accused and acquitted him of the said charges, which 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 took place on 23.10.2000 at about

1:00 p.m. near village Tanakhar, and that in the said accident, one

Bhuwan Singh, who was travelling in the offending vehicle, died, while

other persons also sustained injuries. The only question that arises for

consideration is whether the said accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving by the accused/respondent.

10. PW-2 Shaniram stated that he knew the accused/respondent and used

to work as a labourer in the offending vehicle. On the date of the

incident, about seven persons were travelling in the said vehicle and,

near Kulhiriya, the offending vehicle overturned. He admitted that he did

not know the actual speed of the offending vehicle and could not say

how fast it was moving.

11. PW-3 Budhwar Singh stated that on the date of the incident, he was

travelling in the offending vehicle and, near Rampur, the offending

vehicle overturned, causing injuries to him and other passengers. In his

cross-examination, he admitted that he could not clearly see who was

sitting on the driver's seat and also admitted that he did not know the

speed of the offending vehicle.

12. PW-6 Gopal stated that he and Bhuwan Singh were travelling in the

offending vehicle and, before reaching Tanakhar, the vehicle overturned.

He identified the respondent as the driver, as he had worked with him

earlier. However, he did not state any specific act of rash or negligent

driving on the part of the accused/respondent. Similarly, PW-7 Mehtter

has not stated that the accused/respondent was driving the offending

vehicle in a rash or negligent manner.

13. Thus, from the above evidence, it appears that although the witnesses

have stated that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle

overturned and that the accused/respondent was driving it, but none of

them has clearly stated any specific act showing rash or negligent

driving by accused/respondent. The prosecution has not brought any

evidence on record regarding the exact speed of the vehicle, the

condition of the road, any mechanical defect, or any other circumstance

to show that the accused/respondent was driving the offending vehicle

in a rash or negligent manner. The learned trial Court, after proper

appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the

prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged

offences beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the

accused/respondent of the charges by extending the benefit of doubt.

14. 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."

15. 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.

16. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the

acquittal of accused/respondent is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

Akhilesh