1 2025:CGHC:54920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.145 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Raju Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Semariya, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 11.11.2025 1. 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 29.11.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2675/2010, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by one Rajesh Baghel, the son of the deceased-Kundaran Bai, wherein it was alleged by him that on 30.04.2010 at 20.30 hours, his mother SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.11.11 18:59:57 +0530 2 was returning home after doing her work and as soon as, she reached near the main road of Aman Nagar, she was dashed vehemently from the opposite direction by the driver of the motorcycle, being Passion Plus Registration No.C.G.-04-CY-2466 on account of his rash and negligent driving, owing to which, his mother has sustained serious internal injuries and became unconscious and was admitted into the Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur and, the driver of the offending vehicle has fled away after leaving the alleged vehicle on the spot, which was got seized by him vide Ex.P-5 on 01.05.2010. Further of his allegation would show that the alleged incident was seen by his brother-in-law, namely, Bharat Nayak and others and, initially, based upon his alleged report, an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC was registered against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle and during investigation, the deceased-Kundaran Bai has passed away on 01.05.2010 during the course of her treatment and after completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since none of the witnesses have seen the respondent driving the alleged vehicle at the relevant point of time and as son of the deceased was not present at the spot and eye-witness-Bharat Nayak has, however, failed to establish the alleged fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was driving the 3 vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, nor even the respondent was identified, he has, thus, been held to be innocent and accordingly acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that an FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by son of the deceased-Kundaran Bai and, from a bare perusal of it would show that on the said fateful day, i.e. 30.04.2010 around 20.30 hours, his mother was dashed by the driver of the offending vehicle from the opposite direction while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and, the alleged incident was seen by his brother-in-law, namely, Bharat Nayak and others. He has, thus, not seen the alleged incident, but, when he was examined as PW-1, it was, however, stated by him that on the said fateful day, he was having a cup of tea along with his brother-in-law, namely, Bharat 4 Nayak and has seen that his mother was dashed from its back side by the driver of the alleged vehicle, while driving the same in a high speed. His statement is, therefore, cannot be relied upon, as he was not an eye-witness of the alleged incident, yet has deposed contrary to the version made in the alleged report (Ex.P-1), where his mother was stated to be dashed from its front side. 8. It is to be seen further, as revealed from his alleged report (Ex.P-1) that his brother-in-law, namely, Bharat Nayak was present on the spot, but the Najari Naksha (Ex.P-6), prepared at his instance, the name of said Bharat Nayak was, however, not shown. Even otherwise, from a perusal of entire of his evidence, the name of the driver, who was driving the alleged vehicle, was not disclosed by him. 9. Bharat Nayak (PW-2) was the brother-in-law of the complainant and according to him, the alleged incident was occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent while driving the alleged offending vehicle and dashed the chest of the deceased- Kundaran Bai, who fell down and during the course of her treatment, she died on the next day, but has failed to state specifically how the alleged incident was occurred. Even otherwise, he was not found to be present on the spot, as his name was not shown in alleged map (Ex.P-6). No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon his testimony, in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged incident. Even the identification of the respondent has not been made by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 5 10. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane