Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18337 (CHH)

DINESH YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1344/2025 · 2025-04-21

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:17989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1344 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Yadav S/o Dhanau Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Damgarh, Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2 - Dayaram S/o Panchu Ram Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Semraha Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunwar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 21.04.2025. 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Second Addl. Judge to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kawardha, Dist- Kabirdham in Sessions Case No. 67/2024 whereby the charge against the petitioner has been 2 framed for the offence under Section 279, 337 ( 14 counts), 338, 304 (18 counts) of IPC and 3/181, 130 (3)/177, 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no culpable homicide not amounting to murder but it was just an accident which has been occurred on 20.05.2024 when he was taking his vehicle from Bahpani Jungle to Village- Semhara. The vehicle was loaded by Tendu leaves and the labourers were also there in the said pick-up vehicle. When it was crossing from the valley it was turn turtle down and fell in the deep valley by which 18 persons lost their lives and 16 have injured. There is no any intentional act by the petitioner which amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and therefore, charge under Section 304 cannot be framed against the petitioner. It is a simple case of accident and charge under Section 304A of IPC is appears to be made out. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel is opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that carrying a number of the persons as the labourers along with the tendu leaves in the said pick up bearing No. CG 09 JD 5670 itself amounts to knowledge that the vehicle may met with an accident and person may have died. When the vehicle was heavily loaded by Tendu leaves, he ought not to permitted the labourers to sit there in the vehicle that too when it was crossing from a hilly area. By the act of the petitioner 18 persons lost their lives and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charge for the offence under Section 304 of IPC on 18 counts along with other offences and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. True, it is in the instant case, 18 persons lost their lives when the vehicle was turn turtles down in the valley, but considering the fact that the vehicle is the pick up vehicle, loaded with tendu leaves, it was not carrying one or two labourers but a number of labourers were carrying along with tendu leaves in the said vehicle. Having loaded with the tendu leaves and the labourers itself shows the knowledge of the petitioner that the vehicle may met with an accident and person may have lost their lives yet he has permitted them to loaded with the vehicle. It is not the simple act of negligence but it is an act amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder having such a situation that he was driving the vehicle with heavily loaded tendu leaves and number of persons. By the said accident 18 persons have lost their lives and 16 persons have been injured. 6. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, the consideration of the learned trial Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not found any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order to interfere with the petition. Accordingly, the petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.22 10:05:46 +0530