'.^,r- '^wrnp'G.M-]-^^^ ^G;3./u5 A'; S^"'"":^'^ ^•.-:^u/0-?6/'Q/>,)^ • ';!-^ ::":^^^Cf,' .'., .^.-<.n^u^;^,.^- ^ SingSe Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0. 5^ | /2009 ACQUITTAL APPBAL N0._/2009 APPBLLANT : RESroN^.^ ^^\^-^ ^"•^^ ./ n^f The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Vishwanath S/o.- Raghunath Sahu, Aged about - 23 years R/o.- Charoda, Bus Stand, P.S. Bhilai - 3, District - Durg (C.G.) »7&(3 APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LBAVE TO AI>PBAL U/S 378 (3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 376 (11 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 591 of 2009 APPUCANT State of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENT Vishwanath Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appticant/State. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(31 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (15.12.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, district Durg, in Criminal Case No. 981/2006 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 304-Aof the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.1997 an FIR was lodged against the respondent/accused alleging that on 16.11.1997 at about 5 p.m. he was driving Tempo bearing registration No. MPR 4940 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased namely Yasoda Bai while she was getting down another tempo. It is alleged that after the incident, deceased was shifted to a Nursing Home in the tempo of the respondent/accused himselfwhere she died. 3. Though the prosecution had given a tist of 19 witnesses, it could examine only one witness namely Kamini Bai (PW-1) in support of its case and rest of the witnesses could not be examined by the prosecution despite availing sufficient opportunity by it. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminat Procedure in which the plea of innocence and false implication has been taken by him. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below ought to have given some more opportunities to the prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case. He submits that even otherwise on the basis of material available on record, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondenVaccused for the offences under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and a grave illegality has been committed by it in acquitting him ofthe charge levelled against him. 5. From the statement of Kamini Bai (PW-1) it is not clear as to whether the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligentty by the respondent/accused This witness admits that near the place of incident speed barkers are there on both sides of the road and normally when the vehicle reaches there, it starts moving slowly. Except this, no other evidence is available on record to show that the respondent/accused was driving the vehicte rashly and negligently. More so, the prosecution has been granted enough opportunity to tead the evidence but when in a long span of 10 years it could not produce any witness for examination, the Court below had no other option but to acquit the respondent/accused ofthe charges levelled against him. :£- Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant 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 theevidence 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 Section 304-A 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 for registration of appeal against thejudgment ofacquittal is hereby refused. Sd/- pritinkerDi^ker Judge ^ ..