State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sheetal Prasad Rajak

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J

Heard on IA No.01/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani

& Ors. reported in 1996 3 SCC 132, the delay of 46 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.

Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC.

This petition is preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.4.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) in Criminal Case

No.21182/2016 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondent for the charges under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The respondent was charge sheeted for driving vehicle - Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CG 22 AB 2420 at public place near Vinu Petrol

Pump, Dharamkata, Raipur, dashed one Sundaru Soni. Due to dashing on the mouth of said Sundaru Soni his two teeth were broken.

Case of the prosecution rests on the statement of Sundaru Soni, but as per the version of this witness the respondent is not known to him earlier and

his statement was recorded only after showing him the photograph of the respondent which was fixed in the memo of arrest. It means the photograph

of the respondent was shown to this witness before his examination in the trial Court. He did not identify the respondent himself while deposing before

the trial Court. Looking to his evidence, the trial Court opined that the report was not lodged naming the respondent as culprit and the respondent was

not known to this witness, therefore, identification parade must have been conducted during the investigation. As this witness has not identified the

respondent before the trial Court but photograph of the respondent was shown before the statement of this witness on court, the trial Court opined that

there is possibility of implicating the respondent without identifying him. Rest of the witnesses are not the witnesses of the incident and looking to the

entire record, the trial Court opined that charges levelled against is not established. Therefore, this Court has no reason to interfere with the finding of

the trial Court. This is not the case where the respondent should be called for full consideration of the case.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the CrMP stands dismissed.