1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 592 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Mukesh Yadav S/o Bisahuram Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Shivaji Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 08/07/2025 1. This appeal under section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the judgment of acquitted dated 15.10.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 75/2016 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Circuit Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (CG) (for short ‘trial Court’) . By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from charges punishable under Section 279 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 22.11.2015, the complainant, Bhagwan Lal Taunk, lodged a written report stating that the victim Awadhesh Mishra was travelling on his pleasure vehicle bearing registration No. CR-19A- 4166. Near Sen Chowk, Main Road, the respondent-accused while driving a Hywa vehicle bearing No. CG-04-HY-2061 in a rash and negligent manner, caused an accident, causing grievous injuries to him. The alleged act constitutes a 2 punishable offence under relevant provisions of the IPC, 1860. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered at Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), and investigation commenced. During investigation, the nazri naksha was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, and upon collection of sufficient evidence, the respondent-accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker, and the respondent was put on trial before the learned trial Court. 3. On due appreciation, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant (respondent herein) on the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to the evidence available on record, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct legal and factual perspective. In particular, the testimony of the injured witness (PW-1), being a material and reliable piece of evidence, has not been duly considered or evaluated in its proper context. He further submits that the impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court and is liable to be set aside. The appellant/State, therefore, prays that the accused/respondent be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on due appreciation of the evidence available on record. He submits that the statement of the injured witness (PW-1) does not inspire confidence, as it lacks the requisite degree of consistency and credibility expected of a witness of sterling quality. The testimony is fraught with material contradictions and omissions, rendering it unreliable for sustaining a conviction. Therefore, it is urged that the present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 observed that an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. It has been held in paragraph 9 as under - “Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279), State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju (1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCC 199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited cases cannot be sustained. 8. In the case of M.C.Ali and anr. v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 in which it has been held as under - 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 4 appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 9. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence on record gave a finding in paragraph 6 as under:- “Prosecution witness Awadhesh Mishra (PW-1) deposed in his Court evidence that he is acquainted with the accused. He stated that the incident occurred on 20.11.2015. On the date of the incident, he was proceeding to the bank on his scooty. When he reached near Sen Chowk, a truck, being driven at high speed and in a swaying manner, struck him. As a result of the collision, he fell down, and the wheels of the truck ran over both his legs, causing fractures. However, in his cross-examination, the witness admitted that his vehicle had struck the truck from behind and further confirmed that the collision between the two vehicles was not a head-on one. Prosecution witness Bhagwan Lal Taunk (PW-2) stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone 5 to his field, where he was informed of the accident through a phone call. In his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he had not witnessed the accident. The admission of PW-1 in cross-examination that his vehicle had hit the truck from the rear side clearly indicates that it was the injured’s vehicle which collided with the truck. Additionally, PW-2 also admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the incident. In light of the above, the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and is set at liberty.” 10. The findings of the learned trial Court appear to be based on a proper and judicious appreciation of the evidence available on record. Upon a holistic evaluation of the material placed before it, the trial Court rightly concluded that prosecution could prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no apparent error in the appreciation of evidence warranting interference. Furthermore, to substantiate the allegation of grievous hurt sustained by the injured, no medical evidence has been adduced, nor has any doctor been examined to corroborate the nature and extent of the injuries. In the absence of such corroborative medical testimony, the prosecution case suffers from a material lacuna. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well-reasoned and do not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant/State fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.07.10 16:58:21 +0530