1 2025:CGHC:21074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 205 of 2021 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Surendra Pawle S/o Rajkumar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Jamgala Police Station Lakhanpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government Advocate and Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent :Shri Pawas Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07.05.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. 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 15.02.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Case No.320/2017, whereby, the respondent- Surendra Pawle has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (three counts) and 338 (four counts) of IPC. SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.05.07 18:39:16 +0530 2 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (three counts) and 338 (four counts) of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 07.11.2016 at about 17.20 hrs., the accused was driving the vehicle in question, i.e. City Bus, bearing registration No.CG 15 AB 0476 in a rash and negligent manner in public place and, on account of the alleged rash and negligent driving, it caused accident, owing to which, some of the passengers, namely, Smt. Rita Toppo, Kamla Bai, Vivek Minj, Mona Rajwade, Krishna Thakur and Priti Krispotta, sustained grievous injuries and, on the basis of the alleged allegations, the alleged offences mentioned herein-above were framed against the respondent, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to establish the alleged fact that the vehicle in question was being driven on the said fateful day, i.e. 07.11.2016 around 17.20 hrs. in a rash and negligent manner, one Vidyacharan was examined as PW-1, who stated at para 1 of his evidence that the alleged vehicle was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, owing to which, it was tilted down. In his cross-examination, it was stated by him that when an enquiry was made by the concerned Police, he has not disclosed the name of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. 5. Priti Krispotta (PW-2) was, however, unable to state the number of the vehicle in question and stated that because of its high speed, it was tilted down, owing to which, she has sustained grievous injuries on her left leg. It, however, appears from her cross-examination at para 4 that she was unable 3 to state, who was driving the alleged vehicle at that particular time. 6. Mona Rajwade (PW-3) stated that on the fateful day, the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent – Surendra Pawle and, on account of its driving, the alleged vehicle was tilted down, owing to which, her left leg was got fractured. It, however, appears from her cross- examination, particularly at para 4, that when she was enquired by the concerned Police, she has not stated that the alleged vehicle was being driven by him without his control and stated further that she has not disclosed the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Kamla Bai (PW-4) has denied the fact in her cross-examination that the vehicle in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, nor was unable to state the number of the alleged offending vehicle. 8. Vivek Minj (PW-5), who was also coming by the said offending vehicle on the said fateful day, stated that when he was enquired by the police, it was not informed that the alleged accident was occurred, because of rash and negligent driving of its dirver, nor was aware that who was driving the alleged vehicle, as reflected from his cross-examination at para 3. 9. Krishna Thakur (PW-6), who was coming by the alleged offending vehicle from Ambikapur to Lakhanpur, stated that the vehicle in question was being driven by its driver in a moderate speed and denied the fact, specifically at para 2, that it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. 4 10. Mohd. Imam @ Raju (PW-8) was a Mechanic and according to him, the vehicle in question was tilted down on the fateful day, because of its mechanical fault. 11. Rita Toppo (PW-13) was the another passenger of the alleged offending vehicle, but has stated in her evidence at para 3, that it was not being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Other prosecution witnesses are formal in nature. 12. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it is apparent that none of them have stated that on the fateful day, i.e. 07.11.2016 at 17.20 hrs., the alleged offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and, the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita