IN THB mOH €X?URTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR AT CHHATTISGARH M.C.R.C.WO. OP200S"' C^>\P ^Ti^l^ CRnUNAL APPBAL N0. OF 200%^' APPELLAiNT POWDBNT e^p^£^. ^^^c^ f.J^- ^i-t !-e&'rA!ppuc State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sheon Narayan, .Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CGI VBRSUS Rana Prasad, S/o Gopi Chand Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Tusma, Thana Sheori Narayan Distt. Janjgir-Chanipa (CG) AfPUCATION FOR GRANT OF UEAVE TO AWBAL UWDBR SBCTION 378 1^1 AND MBMORANDUM OF APBBAL UNDBR SE€"TION 378'^tli OF THE CODE OF aEaMCTAL PROCEDURE. 1973. ^y.FlUi^ -:' § !!;>, ^. ,^ *S€5i S versus State ol Chlianisgarh Ram. Prasact Shri Praveen Das. Dv. G.A. for the State/appiicant. AFPLICATION FOR GRAST OF LEAVS TO APPiBAL !iiuni?.i SyX^f^. S. A^JS^ •S ?&%^ •'^s- Si.t^i.S^ ^SSS^S^. '.c. GRDSR Keanl on adinission. Tae preseat petitioii fiied uader Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. is directed agaiast the iinpugned order and judginent dated 15.10.2004 passed by fhe Judicial Magistrate p*irst Class, Janjgir-Champa in Crimmal Case N0. 362/2002 whereby acauittiag fhe respondent/accused of the offeace luider Sections 304-A 8s 337 ofthe iPC. 2. Brieffacts oftjae case are tiiat oa 21.2.2002, while driving fhe tmck bearm.g registi-ation No. CG 11 ZB 0115 fhe respondent/accused dashed one Dasfaarain who was ridiag the bicycle as a result of which. he died aad fhe piUion rider, who was the son of fhe deceased had sustained iniuries. PIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Digsaiber SattU (P.W.-l), local resideat of t±iearea where the incident took piace. 3. So as to ho5d the accused/respondent giulty, tiie orosecution has examined tea witnesses. Stateaient of the accused/respondent was also recorded ui}der Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. in which lie denied fhe charges levelied agauist him and pleaded his innocence and false isipiicauon ia tlie case. . '^^ 4. ~ After hearing fhe parties, fhe trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent ofthe ofience as Dientioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Contention of Shri Das, is tbat on fhe Tsasis of fhe evidence and material availatole on record, fhe Court below ought to have convicted the accused/respoadent. He subinits that fiie Court below has taken a verv lenient view whUe passing fhe impiigned judginent. 6. Digamber Sahu (P.W.-l) lodger offhe FIR has stated fhat fhe report was lodged bv him but he had not seen fhe accident aad he reached on the spot after fhe accident. Firtu Rajn (P.W.- 2) has though described the accident but has not stated t1a.at fbe truck was beiag driveB. rashly or negUgenfly. Shobhit Kuiuai' (P.W.-3) son offhe deceased aad at tlie i^levaiit time was sitting on fhe carrier of fhe cycle, has stated tia.at whea he was going along wifh his faffaer, the truck which was beiiig driyen fast, dashed his faf&er who was rid.mg fhe bicycle as a result of which his father died. In para 5 of his evideace this witness has admitted the fact fhat after seeing the truck coniing from. behiad, he jumped from. fhe cycle and his fafher rode the cycle towards the road, feB. down and met with the uicident. 7. Ram Chand Sahu (P.W.-4) has stated tliat he has not seen the iacident. Raindbaiii fP.W.-5'l helper ofthe accused has stated that ftie tnick ia question \vas not driven rashly or negUgenfly. Bajrang Siugh (P.W.-6), Bheshraai (P.W.-7) & Kheekholal (P.W.-8) who were traveliag in tlie tiTick, have also not deposed anytls.mg agaiast the acciised/respondent. V.C.Smgh (P.W.-9) is the lodgcr of the FIR 85 Nai-ayan Ra&ore (P.W.-10) is the Head Constable. If tlie eEtii-e evidence is seen miautelv, none of fhe witaesses has stated that on the date of incident the vehicle was driven rashly or negligenfly b;/ the accused/ respondent. !L ^'SttSi*. ; '''...* •" 8. In fhe facts and. circuiustances of the case. I fmd BO reason to iaterfere ia fhe judgment of acquittal pardcularly tbe view taken by the court below is one of the possible view. It is a setfled position of law ia relatioa to cases agamst acquittal, ia a petition against acqilittal if two views are possible oa fhe basis of tlie evidence led. by the prosecution and fhe tdal Coiirt ta.kms one view favoured the accused. reversion of tlie fiiidings of acquittal by tlie appeBate Court taking tiie ofher possible vie-iv into consideration is not permissible in. law. This Court. is of tl-ie view th.at the judgruent impugned acquittmg fae respondents/accused of fhe offence as alleged is jiist aiid proper. Accordingly, the leave as sought. for by fhe applicaat/ State for registra.ti.cn of appeal agaiast the judgiaeni of acquittal is herebv refused. ~- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge