1 2025:CGHC:22948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 76 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyabandh (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus Gopal Ram Sahu S/o Late Dheer Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Panduka, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyabandh (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate. SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 10/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 01/07/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.655/2016, whereby, respondent- Gopal Ram Sahu has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.13 18:38:18 +0530 2 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Punitram Sahu, father of the deceased, namely, Mordhwaj Sahu, lodged a complaint before the Panduka Police Station with regard to the fact that on 09/12/2016 at 07:30 AM, his son had gone out to collect the rice paddy in the field by his cycle but, where he was dashed vehemently by the driver of the offending vehicle “Tata Sumo” bearing its registration No. CG-08-5795, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely, Gopal Ram Sahu. It is stated further that the alleged information was received by him from one Kaushalya and upon receiving the said information, he rushed to the spot where his son was found to be stucked between the alleged offending vehicle and the brick wall and his said son was taken out by Gopal, Yogesh, Jitendra and Omkar and thereafter, they took him to the government Hospital at Rajim, but the Doctor referred him to Raipur, however, on the way he passed away. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the concerned Police Station has registered the offence against the respondent – Gopal Ram Sahu under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC in connection with Crime No.163/2016 and the FIR (Ex.P-12) was registered to this effect. During the course of investigation, the alleged offending vehicle as well as the cycle driven by the deceased was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-3 on 09/12/2016, while the insurance papers and the R.C. book of the alleged offending vehicle on 17/02/2016 vide Ex.P-9. Inquest of the dead 3 body was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and autopsy of it was conducted by Doctor Kirtan Sahu (PW-11), who opined the cause of death to be shock and hemorrhage owing to excessive bleeding occurred as a result of multiple injuries and, after considering the materials available on record, the trial Court has framed the charges against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the vehicle in question was not being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-Gopal Ram Sahu and in consequence, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondent was not driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently is apparently contrary to the materials available on record. While inviting attention towards the statement of Yogesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2), particularly paragraph 2 of his testimony and the statement of Omkar Sahu (PW-4), paragraph 4 of his evidence, 4 stated that the alleged incident was occurred only because of rash and negligent driving by the said driver, however, without considering the same in its proper manner, the trial Court has committed an illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that although the said witnesses (PW-2 and PW-4) have stated that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent, but the evidence of theirs’ were not reliable as in cross examination, Yogesh Kumar (PW-2) has stated specifically at para 6 that at the time of crossing the lane, the alleged vehicle was being driven slowly, while Omkar Sahu (PW-4) has stated in his cross-examination, particularly at paragraph 5, that the same was being driven at a normal speed and, therefore, while taking note of those evidence, the trial Court has not erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and, perused the entire record carefully. 9. Before proceeding with the matter, it is to be noted that in a case of an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence would get re-enforced, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Atley v. State of U.P.” reported in AIR 1955 SC 807 and, if two views are possible from the 5 evidence on record, then, the Appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Sambasivan v. State of Kerala” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 412 and, what would be the approach while dealing with the acquittal appeal was laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of “Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat” reported in (1996) 9 SCC 225, at paragraph 7 as under:- “7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the abovequoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order to acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only- reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own 6 conclusions…………….. ” 10. While keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters, it is necessary to examine the facts and the evidence led by the prosecution in order to ascertain as to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, are perverse or would deserve to be upheld. 11. Punit Ram was the father of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1, and a bare perusal of his statement would show that he was not present at the spot when the alleged incident was occurred on 09/12/2016 in the morning and, in fact he received the alleged information from one Kaushalya Sahu. Insofar as the statement of said Kaushalya Sahu (PW-3) is concerned, it appears that she was unable even to mention the number of the alleged offending vehicle and also the name of the driver, who was driving the same, and has stated specifically in her cross-examination at paragraph 8 that she has not seen the incident. 12. Harishankar was examined as PW-5, but was unable to state that who and how the vehicle in question was being driven at the relevant point of time and deposed further in his cross- examination that he came to know later on, that the alleged vehicle was being driven by one Yogesh who has taken the respondent for teaching him how to drive the vehicle. 7 13. Yogesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2) has stated at paragraph 2 that the alleged accident has been occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, namely, Gopal Ram Sahu, the respondent herein, but in his cross-examination, particularly at paragraph 6, it was stated that at the time of crossing the lane, the alleged offending vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo was being driven slowly. Omkar Sahu (PW-4) has stated in his evidence that the alleged incident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, namely, Gopal Ram Sahu, but while deviating from his said version, it was deposed in cross-examination that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven cautiously at the time of the incident. 14. Jitendra Yadav, the another eye witness, was examined as PW-6, but has stated at paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent/accused slowly. The other prosecution witnesses are found to be formal in nature. 15. What is, therefore, reflected from the evidence led by the prosecution that although Kaushalya (PW-3) was stated to have seen the alleged incident as reflected from the report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the father of the deceased, but the said witness (PW-3) has, however, not supported the alleged of her version, as observed herein-above, nor was found to be supported by other prosecution witnesses, namely, Harishankar (PW-5) and Jitendra Yadv (PW-6). 8 16. Insofar as the statements of Yogesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2) and Omkar Sahu (PW-4) are concerned, it appears that although they have stated in their examination-in-chief that the alleged incident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, namely, Gopal Ram Sahu, but a close scrutiny of their statements, as reflected from paragraph 6 of said Yogesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2) and paragraph 5 of said Omkar Sahu (PW-4), would, however, show that the vehicle in question was being driven slowly and at a normal speed. 17. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is, therefore, difficult to hold that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely, Gopal Ram Sahu and the trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 18. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Chandrakant