1 2025:CGHC:36792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 589 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Charama, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus Bhikham Kumar S/o Panchuram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Sahupara, Ranchirai, Police Station Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ State : Mr. S.K. Puria, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 29/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Link Court, North Bastar, Kanker (CG) in Criminal Case SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 No.263/2018, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 279, 337, 323 & 294 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.12.2017, at 6:45 p.m, at Village Khahargodi under the jurisdiction of Police Station Charama, the respondent/accused, while driving his vehicle Hyva bearing registration No.CG-04-JC-4968, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed complainant Satdal Devnath (PW-1), causing injury and also abused him in filthy language. Further, the respondent also assaulted the complainant him by using hands and fists. The complainant lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) against the driver of the Hyva Vehicle on the same date at 7:30 p.m. at Police Station Charama. The Crime Detail Form was prepared vide Ex.P/2 and a Panchnama has been prepared vide Ex.P/3 with regard to the damage caused to the car bearing registration No.CG-04 H 8877. The complainant was also medically examined vide Ex.P/4 and the examining Doctor (not examined) found swelling on his left hand and arm, caused by hard and blunt object. The injury was simple in nature. On 20.2.2018, the offending vehicle and its documents were seized from the possession of the respondent vide Ex.P/5. 3. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 3 witnesses In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the respondent/accused stated that that he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence. 5. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent/accused of the aforesaid charges. Hence, this Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons in the impugned judgment. The complainant himself did not support the case of the prosecution, and moreover, he also failed to identify the driver. He further submits that there is inconsistency in the statement of the wife of the complainant namely Shravni Devnath (PW-2), therefore, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, he submits that the judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Complainant, Satdal Devnath (PW-1), while recording his statement in Court, did not identify the respondent. This witness stated that the reason for this was that, at the time of the incident, there was darkness, and he could not identify the driver of the 4 offending vehicle. He further deposed that from the rear, the driver of the Hyva vehicle collided with his vehicle. On the contrary, his wife- Shravni Devnath (PW-2), has deposed differently, stating that the driver of the offending Hyva vehicle dashed their vehicle from the front. Except these witnesses, no other witness has been examined. Furthermore, the complainant himself has not identified the offender. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved any case against the respondent, as there is no evidence available against him. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. 11. This Court does not find any substance or merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna