IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH ‘ $mgia Bench M.C.R.C. NO. OF 20 6 C‘QMQ) Qgg‘@ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 200 ' Appellant Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station, Rajnandgaon(CG)/ Versus 1. Prashant Kumar, @ Dabbu S/o Pramod Sahu, aged “Ta/fa l@ulsipur,)Ward About 28 years, No. R/o 16/; , 7o P.S, Tahsil and District Zg/alaRajnandgaoWCG) n PPLICATION FQR GRANJLOF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3i AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378! 1! OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 197§ nail—n1, annamW ~‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. M.P. No. 233 of 2009 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Prashant Kumar alias Dabbu. RESPONDENT Shri Pravin Das GA for the applicant/State. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (om 1 .2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the‘impugned judgment dated 27.9.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Case No. 326/2005 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under section 304—A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.7.1999 FIR (EX. P-1) was registered to the effect that on 14.6.1999 at about 3.30 p.m. deceased Manharan Satnami came into the contact of a cooler which was kept outside the Ice—cream Parlour of the respondent/accused, and died. 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 offence under section 304(A) 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 of the respondent. ‘ 4. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of ifs case. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges leveiled against him and pleaded false implication in the ll case. 5. Dr. C.S. Mohbek (PW-4) has stated in his evidence that cause of death of the deceased could be electrocution as well as because of excessive work in summer season. Further the delay of about one month has also not been explained by the prosecution as in this case the incident is said to have taken place on 14.6.1999 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 28.7.1999. This apart, statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded three months after the date of incident and that the none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has established the fact that death of the deceased was on account of rash and negligent act of the respondent/accused. Even the witness to the report of the Electrician namely Santosh Sharma (PW—5) has not supported the case of the prosecution. Having come across all these factors i.e. unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and also in recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statement of the doctor who has shown two possibilities for the death of the deceased, this Court does not deem it proper to strike a note to the contrary as that of the Court below. 6. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State 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 of the 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 offence under t __Z__ section under sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingiy‘ the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittai is hereby refused. E $5!!- Pritinker Diwaker, Judget ' i \ i i