@ 1N THE HIGH coum OF JUDICATURE AT BJLASPUR 1 . . . CHHATTISGARH »- gwmi? Guddue S/o Natthumm amal Aged about 2 gays, R/o Villagc Kalmi Police Station: Raigarh Distt: Raigafh (CG) ‘ §éspdndent APPLICAION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378M 13) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3&1! OF‘ J ”f THE CODE OF‘ CRIMINALVPROCEDURE 1973. M @ x; M Cw M‘p‘ 2?:g7g . ‘. NO. UF 20 C . O. OF 20 $0 ‘ i; ‘ / State of Chhattisgarh Through : Stau' Incgrgg i ‘ 1r ’ " ’ Police StationVSalagonn, District: Hwg‘ww— g . Janjgccr—Chmnpa (CG) “MM” K3w$i w VbRbUb APPIIICANT This petition Is filed against the judgment and order dated 12 10 2004 passed by JudICIal Magistrate Flrst Class Janjglr In Cnmmal Case Np. 522/2002 acqwttmg the respondent/accused of the charges. under sections 3'37 and 304—A IPC. - 2.V :Fa'cts of the case in brief are that on 0604,1997 while the respondent/accused was driving the Jeep bearing registration No. MP09 H 8623 ‘it got overturned resuiting in the death of Jaimangai and causing Injuries to Chhat Kumari Goverdhan Muriidhar and Rathuram FIR (Ex P 11 A was regtstered against the respondent/accused and after Investigation challan was filed by the police on 17 4 1997 3. ' So as to hoid the accused/respondent guiity, prosecution has examined 11 Witnesses in support of its case Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that on the baSIs of material, collected by the prosecution the Court below ought to have conVIcted the respondent/accused for the offence mentioned above but ignoring the same and thereby awarding acqUIttal to the respondent it has fallen in a grave legal error He submits that even if the Witnesses have not stated ' that the vehicle m questlon was being drwen by the respondent/accused rashly and negligently but as one person has died in the aCCident and four (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Cr.M.P. 275/2009 State of Chhattisgarh VERSUS Saheblal @ Guddue 'Shri Praveen Das Dy. GA for the applicantlState. None for the respondent ‘ RESEONDENT APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION ‘ 78 I3! OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (22 o7 2010) I 1 ) ‘ ,1, have sgfféred injuries, the judgment of the Court bélow acquitting the respondent/accused is not proper and liable to be set aside. .: Heard counsel for the applicant/state and perused the material 5 availabte on record. 6. ‘ Though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses, none of them hasistated that the vehicle in question was being driven rashiy and negligently by the respondent/accused. Rathuram (PW-1) has stated that e Wais sitting in the Jeep and all of sudden one truck came from the opposite direction and as one person was lying 0n the roadalong with his icycle, to save him the accused/respondenttook the Jeep-to the other side and vVhile again trying to take it on the road, it got overturned and met ith the accident; He has further stated that the vehicle was being driven by the accused/respondent properly. Murlidhar (PW—4) has though stated that the accused/respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, in crass—examination he hash/ct Stated-so. Similar is the position with the statements of Gangadhar (PW-3) and other witnesses. The trial Court has quittal after due appreciation .of the evidence d therefore the judgment impugned suffers from no thus given a finding of ac available on record an illegality, 7. After going through the material available On record and being very, much conscious of the existing legal‘position that in an ap peal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking o'ne view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting respondent/accused of the ch Accordingly, the application seeking leave ”to‘appeal bein substance is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected and leave to' appeal-as prayed for is refused. j k \ Sd/I- arges under Sections 337 and 304—A IPC, is just and proper- and does not warrant any interference by this‘Court. g without j Pritinker Diwaker j g “if; Judge h b w