2025:CGHC:10540 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acq. A. No. 407 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bagbahara, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Santosh Kumar Jalkshatri, S/o Lakhan Lal Jalkshatri, aged about 40 Years, R/o Village - Ganjar, P.S. Bagbahara, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Arvind Dubey, G.A. . For Respondent : Shri Utkal Pradhan, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 29/04/2025 1. This appeal under section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), has been filed by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28/02/2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 740/2018 by which the respondent/accused acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 2. Fact of the case, in brief, is that, on the date of incident i.e. 25/02/2018 at about 10.30 the respondent/accused drove the Maruti Van bearing registration No. CG- 04/FJ/2188 in rash and negligent manner near Dhani Bhata, Baghbahara in Public road and dash to the Tukaram and Chandradeshkar Chandrakar. As a result Chandrashekhar Chandrakar sustain injuries and fracture. Incident had occurred on 25/02/2018 FIR was lodged on 05/03/2018 against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No. 70/2018 and thereafter the investigation was set on motion. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.19 16:46:43 +0530 -2- 3. The respondent was charged for commission of offense punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited as many as 11 documents. The statement of the respondents under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he claimed his innocence and false implication and did not examined any defense witnesses in his defense. 5. On due appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned JMFC acquitted the respondent giving him benefit of doubt by the impugned judgment which led to filing of this appeal by State before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court committed an error and fact in acquitting the respondent. He further submits that the complainant – Tukaram Yadav (PW-2) and injured Chandrashekhar Chandrakar (PW-1) have supported the case of the prosecution. The injuries sustained by Chandrashekhar Chandrakar (PW-1) is also proved. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and impugned judgment may be set a side and the respondent may be convicted and suitable punishment may be imposed.. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submissions and submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. The incident is said to have occurred on 25/02/2018 and the FIR was lodged on 05/03/2018, after a delay of about 08 days. Though an explanation was offered that the injured was under treatment, therefore the delay was caused but the PW-1 had stated that after 2-3 days of the accident, he had gone to his home, therefore non-filing of the FIR creates doubt that the respondent is falsely implicated. Therefore, the meritorious finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents. 9. Admittedly, the incident had occurred on 25/02/2018. As per case of the prosecution, the PW-1 and PW-2 were traveling in their motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- -3- 06/JB/4470, the respondent drove the vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No. CG-04/FJ/2188 in rashly and negligently and caused grievous hurt to Chandrashekhar Chandrakar (PW-2) and simple hurt to the Tukaram Yadav (PW-1), which caused danger to their life. 10. Though PW-1 and PW-2 in their statement before the Court stated that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the respondent. The learned trial court on assessment of evidence gave its finding in paragraph-22 as under :- “22.The main question before the court is whether the said incident was caused by the accused Santosh Jalakshatri on the said date, time and place. In this regard, the applicant and the injured Tukaram Yadav and Chandrashekhar Chandrakar of the case have expressed that they recognize the accused who caused the accident to them, but witness Tukaram (PW-02) only stated in paragraph 05 of his cross-examination that after the accident, the driver of the accident causing vehicle took both of them to the hospital. Witness Ramankant Sahu (PW-9) expressed that he recognized the accused because he drove the vehicle, but witness PW-9 accepted the defense's suggestion in paragraph 02 of the cross-examination that he cannot tell whether any other driver was driving the accident causing vehicle at the time of the accident or not. And other witnesses have expressed that they do not recognize the accused. It is not clear from the statements of the said witnesses that the said incident was caused by the accused Santosh Jalakshatri on the said date, time and place. Nor has the prosecution proved that the said incident was committed by the accused. Since there is no evidence in this regard statement was not clear, which would make it appear that the accused was involved in the said case.” 11. Admittedly there is a delay of about 08 days in filing the FIR. From the statement of Chandrashekahr Chandrakar (PW-1) it is quite vivid that he sustained simple injuries and after 2-3 days of the accident he had gone to his house, still he did not lodge any report after discharged from the Hospital and his pillion rider on the motorcycle has lodged report. The medical paper were also exhibited by the prosecution which -4- does not intimates that at the time of admission it was informed by the PW-2 that he suffered injuries on account of any accident. 12. In view of above, the finding so recorded by the learned trial Court as detailed above, appears to be based upon the just proper appreciation of evidence. It is also the case that though in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate has all the power to re- appreciate the evidence but certain parameters be laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Muralidhar @ Gidda & Another vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730, and has held in paras 11 and 12 as under:- “11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh v. State , [AIR 1952 SC 52] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed: (AIR p.54, para 7) "7.........The High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons." 12. ………Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court; (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal; (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial -5- court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court. 13. In opinion of this Court, the appeal does not fall in any of the above parameter. Therefore, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- - (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish