1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 757 of 2012 • Mustafa Khan, S/o Jhuri Khan, aged about 50 Years, R/o Tikrapara ,distt. Bilaspur C.G. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Collector, District Bastar, C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.41/2011, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 19.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.153/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G, convicting the applicant under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2008, at about 6:45 a.m., PW-1 Jagendra Korram lodged a merg intimation (Ex. P-1) stating AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.08.26 17:53:10 +0530 2 therein that, on the same day, his uncle Sukhram (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), after purchasing a buffalo, was returning to his village Pamela. However, on the way, the driver of a bus namely Dubey Travels, while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the merg intimation (Ex. P-1), an FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered against the driver of the bus of Dubey Travels. 3. During the course of investigation, a spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-8 and vide Ex. P-4, one Rajdhani Bus bearing registration No. CG04/E1142, white in colour with green and blue markings at certain places along with its documents, was seized from the possession the applicant at Dandewada. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, and the accused/applicant was arrested vide Ex. P-5. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, C.G. The accused / applicant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 5. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, in the evidence of PW-3 Kuhrami Pando and PW-4 Mangli. He also submits that in the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and 3 FIR (Ex.P-2), it is specifically mentioned that the accident occurred due to the bus driven by driver of Dubey Travels, whereas, as per seizure memo (Ex.P-4), Rajdhani Bus was seized, which creates serious doubt and renders the prosecution story doubtful. He also submits that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to suggest that applicant is the author of the crime in question. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. PW-3 Kuhrami Pando, who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident, has stated that on the date of incident, at about 6:00 am, she was collecting Mahua near her house situated by the roadside and at that time, she saw a bus coming from Jagdalpur and hitting the deceased, who was walking on the side of the road, as a result of which, deceased sustained grievous injuries over his body and died. She further submits that the bus involved in the accident was described as white colour with some black patches. However, as per the seizure memo (Ex. P-4), a bus of Rajdhani Travels, white in colour with green and blue markings at certain places, was seized from the possession of the applicant at Dandewada. She also submits that PW-4 Mangli had also witnessed the 4 incident and further she categorically stated that she saw the accused/applicant driving the bus. However, on the contrary, PW-4 Mangli has stated that on the date of incident, she was collecting Mahua in front of her house and after hearing the loud sound, she went to the spot and saw the deceased dashed by a bus and succumbed to the injuries. She has further stated that the bus was coming from Jagdalpur and was being driven at a high speed, but she did not notice the driver who was driving the bus. Furthermore, PW-1 Gajendra Korram and PW-2 Kuhrami Kosho have stated that they did not see the incident. That apart, PW-8 Tulsi Das Sahu, Investigating Officer, has stated that on 17.03.2008, PW-1 Gajendra Korram appeared at the police station and lodged a report against the driver of a bus belonging to Dubey Travels stating that on the main road in front of Badekilepal BRO camp, the driver of bus, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result of which, deceased was thrown aside and died on the spot. In cross-examination, he admitted that Dubey Travels and Rajdhani Travels are different entities, and he did not take any steps to identify or verify the two buses, namely Dubey Travels and Rajdhani Travels. 10. Thus, perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-3 Kuhrami Pando, PW-4 Mangli and PW-8 Tulsiram Sahu, I.O. and their evidence does not corroborate with each other and the contents of merg intimation (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) and seizure memo with respect to alleged accident. That apart, in the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2), it is specifically mentioned that the accident occurred due to the bus driven by driver of 5 Dubey Travels, but as per seizure memo (Ex.P-4), Rajdhani Bus was seized, which renders the entire prosecution story doubtful. Moreover, although PW-3 Kuhrami Pando has stated that she has seen the applicant causing the accident, but a perusal of the spot map (Ex. P-8) shows that she was at a distance of about 100 steps from the place of occurrence and in that view of the matter, it is doubtful as to how this witness could have clearly identified the accused/applicant from such a distance. Besides above, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal for the aforesaid offence on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 11. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 19.10.2010 and that of Appellate Court dated 24.02.2012 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. 12. It is reported that the applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 13. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh