CH) e Slsiais BCTCD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.I CR. M. P. N0.5^ / 200^7 ACQUITTAL APPEAL No^ / 2007 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.j VERSUS L .(c ^^^ ^^..^' ^ ..'^ •• .'K." Rajkumar S/o Mohanlal Kurre^- (^- ,^(- Aged about -20 years ^.-' R/o Village Kapan .^' ^ ..•''' ^ P.S. Janjgir ^ / District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(S) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 B^*U3-OE_f~i/Ynr-t-i-cu^ y ^ ^- ^ — ,>.•( ^ !& HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR. SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICg PRI'HNKER DIWAKER ? Vi^ A aTT- .P.i versus State oi' Chnattisga: Raik'iraar Shii Praveen Das. Dv.G.A. ror tfie StaTe/r>e':.uioiiET. APPLl'CATIOK POR GRART OF- LBAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378(31 ASD MEMO OF APPEAL U/S 378(11 QF' THB (18.02-aOiOl Heai-d 011 adaiission. Tae present peTition njcd usder Secrion 378(3) of 'the Cr.P.C. is du'ecled agaiiist tfae iniT3ugaed order aad judgment dated 7.5.2007 passed by tae Judiciai Magistrs.te First Class, Jaajgir in Cr.Case No. 157/2005 whereby acquitted the respondent for ihe offeace under Sections 279 & 338 ofthe IPC. 2. As per the case of fee prosecution on 28.12.2001 a report was lodged by P.W.-l Diaesh Kuniar MarAar alleging in it fhat on 18.12.2001 at 11.00 a.m., when he was going on foot, the accused who was tlie driver of the tractor caiixe iafroat. driviiig rashlv aaci negMgently and dashed hrm as a result of whicb he sustaiaed number of iiijuries. After m.vestigation, the challaii was filed acd t.be accused/i^spondent was prosecuted for the offences iinder Sections 297 ?»338 ofthe Indiaa Penal Code. 3. In support of its case, tbe prosecuticn has examiued. eight witnesses. Statement of tbe accused/respoBdent wss also recorded ursder Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which I'lf: denied the charges leveled against Jaim. aad pleaded iiinocence arid false iiaplication in the case. ..^aaB>a», 4. After heariag counsel for fhe parties, the Court belcw has acqiiitted fb.e accused/respondent. Hence this petition. 5. Contention of Shri Das, counsel for the State/apphcaiit is fhat on th.e basis of tiie report and stateiaent of witaess iii particular, Dic.esh Kuiuar Maiihai- (P.W.-l), ttie Court below ought to have convicted tlie accused for th.e offences as alteged. He subinits tiia.t by giviB^g a pervei-se findmg the Court below has en-ed in law 'si acquitting the accused/icspondent. 6. I have heard Shri Das aad peinsed the dociiiaes.ts fUed along wifh. fb.e case. 7. Adnuttedly the mcident is said to have ta3i.sn pla.ee 011 18.12.2001 whereas the report has been lodged on 28.12.2001 and there is no satisfactory explana.tion for lodguig the FIR wifii an uiordiaate delav. P'urther there is no evideace on record except tlie stateineiit. of Dinesh KuiEar ManTiar (P.W.-l) showing tliat fh.e vehicle in question was beiag driven rashlv or negUgenflv bv the accused. As per the stateiaeat ofP.W.-l the tractor ia qiiestion was being driven bv the accused aad was own.ed bv one Rakesh KuiBar whereas the investigating ofEicer L.P.Tiwari (P .W.-8), stated fhat no seizure was inade fro-m. Rakesh Kuinar regardiiig tlie tractor as the accident had not occiured witii his tractor biit fhe accident had occurred with the tractor beaiiag N0. M.P.26-E.6816 &TroUev No. M.P. 26-E 6817. 8. Thus, ater .hearing counsel fbr ibe petitioner/State aitd considering tlie inaterial available ou record as we'il as fhe elaborate judgment impugiied passed by the Court below, and being veiy inuch conscious of the existing legal position that ia a. petitioa agaiiist acqiuttal it' two views as-r. possiblc on the basis of tbe evidsnce led 'oy the prosecution and fhe trial Ccurt taking one view favoured the accussd, reversion of the tiadings of acquittsl by the appeilate Court takiae the ofher oossible view in.to consideration is not nermissible ia law. this Court is of fhe view taat fhe .^-ifOSt. .;--.,•s^ S' ,*: •fe. •lis ..vs""^ ;s;,itR^-' judginent impugned acquittm.g tfae respondent/accused of fhe ofience as atleged is just and proper. AccordingJy, tb.e leave as sought for by the applicarit/ State for registration of appeal against fhe judgment ofacquittal is hereby refused. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge