coufirf IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0^ rfi > 3'^£A '"sf- ACOUirTAL APPEAL N6. APPELLANT: The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: c^ Ganesh Ram, s^^-ci+-rat^ S/o.- Sukhram: DeshmuKh, Aged abouF- 3-0 years R/o.- Panchshil Chowk Padurana, P.S. Padurana, Distt. - Chhindwada (M.P.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 131 AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 (ITOF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. ~^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. 298/2010 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT Ganesh Ram Shri Praveen Das Dy. GAfdrthe applicant/State. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TOAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (03.08.2010) Heard on admission. The present petition which is barred by 547 days is directed againsi the impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 1198/2005 acquitting the respondent/accused ofthe charges under Sections 279, 304-A, 337! and338oflPC. ! 2. Brieffacts ofthecase are that on 07.04.1995 while driving the trucl^ bearing registration No. MP20-G-1251 the respondenVaccused dashed against a Scooter on which Sandeep, Vinod and Pileshwar were traveling. On account of the accident Sandeep died on the spot and Vinod and Pileshwar had sufferedserious injuries. FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered by Nohar Lal (PW-1) against the respondent/accused. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution ha^ examined 4 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of thej accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. ! 4 By the impugned judgment the Court below has acquitted the respondent of the offence as mentioned above. Hence the present petition. w*—^ ::^^. '^'^:1 -2- 5 . Counsel for the applicanVState submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to hav^ convicted the respondent/accused for the Qffences mentioned above ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal to therespondent, i( has fallen in a grave legal error. He submits that even if the witnesseg have not stated that the vehicle in question was being driven by the respondenVaccused rashly or negligently but as one person has died iri the accident and two have suffered serious injuries, the judgment ofthe Court below acquitting the respondenVaccused is not proper and liable td be set aside. 6. Heard counsel for the appiicant/state and perused the materia| available on record. I 7. The prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of its case namely Noharlal (PW-1), Pileshwar Chandrakar (PW-2), Purusotam Chandrakar (PW-3) and Dr. G. P. Sharma, none of the witnesses including the injured Pileshwar Chandrakar (PW-2) hasstated that the; vehicle in question was being driven rashly or negligently by the respondent/accused. All these aspects have been duly considered by the Court below while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Aftergoing through the materialavailable on record and beingver^ much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one 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 further that this petition is barred by 547 days, therefore the judgment impugned acquitting respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of !PC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal being without substance is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected and leave to appeal as prayed for is refused. i^ , Pritinker Diwaker Judge