State Of Chhattisgarh vs Amit Kumar

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

Heard on IA No. 01/2022, an application under Section 05 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of delay occurred in filing of the appeal. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned therein, I am inclined to allow the same. Delay of 74 days in filing of the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly IA No. 01/2022, is hereby allowed and is consequently disposed of.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the State, the matter is finally heard.

This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure A/1) by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case no. 13271/2015 acquitting the respondent from the charges punishable under Sections 279, 338 of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3/181, 146/196, 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act.

Brief facts of the case are that:-

On 11.04.2015 the complainant Kuldeep Singh along with Gurupal Singh and Surendra was going to Vani Traders Raipur for purchasing Paint. Gurupal And Surendra were on motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 KA 6084 and complainant was on a cycle. After purchasing the material, while they were returning the driver of the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 09 D 6163 driving speedily dashed the motor cycle in which Gurupal and Surendra were sitting due to which they received several injuries consisting of multiple fractures and the motorcycle was also damaged to an extent. Gurupal and Surendra on receiving the injuries were admitted to the hospital for their treatment.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined one witness namely Pradeep Kumar Singh in their favor.

After appreciating the evidence on record learned trial court did not believed the evidence placed on record proving the guilt of the respondent and therefore, acquitted them from the offence charged against them.

Learned counsel for the State contended that the order/judgment taken by the Trial Court suffers from illegality and infirmity. Learned Trial court failed to appreciate the fact that, there was clear chain of evidences and sufficient materials available on record before it while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal of accused respondents.

I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

Trial Court while acquitting the respondents observed that the only witness Pradeep Kumar Singh who has been examined in favor of the appellant contended in his main examination that he did not know the accused person. He also told that due to some sought of work he went to Police Station D.D. Nagar, where the policemen took his signature in the documents. Other then Pradeep Kumar Singh no other witness has been produced by the appellant in order to prove its case. On being clearly deposed that he did not know the accused person, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the record it is found that the Trial Court has given ample of opportunity to the prosecution to produce the witnesses before the Trial Court. Even after giving ample of opportunities to the prosecution, prosecution has failed to produce any other witness rather than Pradeep Kumar Singh who has himself stated that he did not know the accused persons and on not producing the witness other than him, Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons under Section 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/181, 146/196,39/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 242(1), (2) and (3) provides as under:-

Evidence for prosectuion- (1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses: [provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.]

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.

Prosecution is duty bound to produce the witness before the Court during trial. In the instant case, prosecution has miserably failed to produce the witnesses other than Pradeep Kumar Singh who himself denied the fact that he know the accused person, before the court after giving ample of opportunities. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the judgment/order passed in Criminal Case no. 13271/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. by order dated 05.01.2022 to acquit the accused persons on the ground of non-production of witness by the prosecution is appropriate and suffers from no illegality or infirmity.

Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is disposed of.