State Of Chhattisgarh vs Manharan Yadav

The State has preferred an application for grant of Leave to Appeal under Section 378 (3) of the CrPC against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.1.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.1089/2017 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baloda Bazar, acquitting the respondent of the charges punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304 (A) of the IPC.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.11.2017 at about 17.30 hours the accused was driving his vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04 T/9372 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle being driven by deceased Bansilal. Due to the said accident, Chhotelal suffered simple injuries and during treatment Bansilal died in the hospital. The informant Bansilal lodged an FIR at Police Station Palari for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent from the offences charged and has failed to consider the statements of eyewitnesses. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial Court is patently illegal. Hence it is prayed that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record minutely.

Chhotelal (PW-1) is the injured witness. He has stated that on the date of the incident, he was returning from the village Rohasi to village Udan with the deceased Bansi. Near the cricket ground when Bansi was turning his motorcycle, the said accident took place. In cross-examination, he admits that the incident happened in the middle of the road. He also admits that deceased Bansi suddenly turned his vehicle and the driver of Bolero vehicle, to avoid the accident applied the brakes.

Bhim Rao Sahu (PW-7) and Uttam Sinha (PW-8) have deposed that the accident was not happened in the middle of the road. Though they have stated that the car driver was driving his vehicle in a very high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, but the police has recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC belatedly i.e. about one month after the accident. However, Chhotelal (PW-1), who is an injured witness, himself stated that to avoid the accident, the driver of another vehicle applied the brakes and due to the act of the deceased, as he suddenly turned his motorcycle, the accident occurred.

Therefore, considering the inconsistency in the statements, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion to acquit the accused of the charges alleged. This Court is also of the view that such finding is not perverse. It is established law that when two views are possible, then the same cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the leave cannot be granted.

In the result, the instant CrMP deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.