^Ui-iinffceSfcX^A:.' ."""; ;YNOTiFICrtT;ON W^w,-'-^.&/Q^ ; 3/C.uyo5^,S SPECIFtED iN SCHEDut S&HOFTHECQURT FEESAC^W^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0. K4 /2009 ACQUITTAL APPEAL N0. 72009 APPELLANT : -^'-. w- The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Korea (C.G.) RESPONDENT: VERSUS ?n^'^^^^^ \^^ ^",%^^'\:^^ A.1^-/ ; 1y- ^^•^' "" •- Ramsai @ Sadhu, S/o.- Jangsai Kherwar, Aged about - 32 years R/o.- Village - Salgawan Kala, P.S. Sonhat, Distt. - Korea (C.G.) APPUCATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 (3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 Ff) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. h/lr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No.156of2009 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENT Ramsai alias Sadhu. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the applicant/State. h^..s l^-^s^ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIhfllNAL PROCEDURE. OR D E R (03.11.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.8.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Criminal Case No. 86/2008 acquitting the respondent/accused of fhe offences under sections 304-A and 279 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2007 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by one Manoj Singh to the effect that when his nephew Rajiv Singh was going to school, respondent/accused who was driving the tractor rashly and negligently came and dashed against him resulting in his death. 3. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that there was ample evidence available on record including the evidence of the complainant so as to convict the respondent/accused for the offences under sections under sections 304(A) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, but the Court below has committed a serious error in ignoring the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses and thereby awarding acquittal in favour ofthe respondent. )^^i? — 2-- 4. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. Perusal of the statements of Manoj-Kumar (PW-1), Kanhai Ram (PW-2), Sumitra Bai (PW-3), Vinod Jaiswal (PW-4), Navin Kumar Pandey (PW-7) makes it clear that that the unfortunate incjdent in this case resulting in the death of Rajiv Singh and the involvement of the tractor in the same are not in dispute, but none of these witnesses has stated anything that it was respondent/accused who was driving the tractor at the relevant time who caused his death by his rash and negligent driving. The Court below has dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment and ultimately reached the conclusion that in the absence of any specific allegation regarding rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the respondent/accused, he cannot be convicted under Sections 304-A and 279 ofthe Indian PenalCode. 6. After hearing counsel for the applicanVState and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion ofthe findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences under sections under sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge