1 2025:CGHC:34752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 569 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Darima, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Dev Nath Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Nan Damali, Police Station- Darima, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Uttam Singh S/o Devnath Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Nan Damali, Police Station- Darima, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 22/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 of the CrPC against the judgment dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Criminal Case No.466/2017, PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.23 14:39:15 +0530 2 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 279 & 337 of the IPC and Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.01.2017, at about 10 am, in Village Ramelapara, Police Station Darima, the respondent, while driving his motorcycle- Bajaj Champion bearing registration No. CG 15 JDE-8086, in a rash and negligent manner on a public road, endangering the human life, dashed a child namely Jostin Ekka, aged about 3 years, who sustained simple injuries as per the MLC report (Ex-P/7). Subsequently, on 17.01.2017, an FIR bearing No.10/2017 (Ex-P/1) was lodged by Ganga Ram Bada (PW-1) at Police Station Darima. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex-P/2. The Motorcycle involved in the incident was seized from the respondent vide Ex-P/3. MLC was conducted by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-8), who submitted his report vide Ex-P/4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents/accused from the charges under Sections 279 3 & 337 of the IPC and Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and thus, prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Learned trial court has categorically recorded a finding that there is no reliable evidence who witnessed the incident or the manner in which the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle. From scanning the evidence, it reveals that the FIR (Ex-P/1) was lodged belatedly as the alleged incident took place on 15.01.2017, which goes to show that the FIR was registered after 2 days of the incident. In column 8 of the FIR with regard to delay, it has been mentioned that there is no chance of an amicable settlement, however such explanation is inadequate to justify the delay in lodging the FIR. 8. In the cross-examination, Ganga Ram (PW-1) categorically admitted the fact that they had called the respondent for compromise, but denied the fact regarding demand of money. Moreover, this witness also admitted the fact that the respondent himself took injured- Jostin to the hospital for treatment. In the FIR, it has been stated that the incident was witnessed by Dev Kumari (PW-2), in whose house injured Jostin and his family came as guests. Sukhsai Ekka (PW-3) categorically admitted that he was not present at the time of the incident and therefore, he could not 4 state that the negligence occurred on whose part. Although Sukhsai Ekka (PW-3) is the father of the injured and from the inception i.e. at the time of lodging the FIR, he has been shown as an eyewitness to the incident, but this witness has completely resiled from the fact that he has seen the incident. Furthermore, the presence of Dev Kumari (PW-2) and Sukhsai Ekka (PW-3) is not mentioned in the spot map (Ex-P/2). The other witnesses, Ganga Ram Bada (PW-1) and Mitthu @ Mithai Lal (PW-4) arrived on the spot after the incident occurred and they also did not state in what manner the respondent was driving the vehicle. 9. In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the law has been reiterated that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; and that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible. 10.In view of the above, this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 11.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka