1 2025:CGHC:50867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.209 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Chitrangad @ Chitrasen Tarak S/o Puneetram Tarak, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kurusakera, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 13.10.2025 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 16.02.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.138/2015, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, one Santosh Bharti lodged a report (Ex.P-1) on 01.01.2015 before the Police Station-Panduka of District SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.10.13 18:31:24 +0530 2 Gariyaband, alleging inter alia, that on the date of incident, he was going to his Village Tarra from Village Sursabandha by his motorcycle and one Yoganand was also going to Village Tarra by his motorcycle, namely, TVS XL bearing Registration No.CG-04-KT- 7270, where deceased-Manohar Ghoghre was a pillion rider. It is alleged by him that at the relevant point of time, the respondent while driving his vehicle, i.e., Tractor bearing Registration No.CG-04- DA-2168 in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Village- Tarra, dashed the vehicle driven by said Yoganand and on account of his rash and negligent driving, he (Yoganand) and said Manohar Ghoghre fell down and sustained injuries on his head and right ear and, was admitted into the hospital, but after sometime of his discharge from the hospital, he died. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, one Santosh Bharti, was examined as PW-1 and, according to him, the alleged incident was occurred, because the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent in a high speed, and, the spot map (Najri Naksha), Ex.P-2, was prepared after five days of the occurrence of the incident. 4. Sohan Ghoghre (PW-3), the son of the deceased, who was going to Village Tarra along with said Santosh Bharti, has deposed that the alleged incident was occurred because of the fault of the respondent, as he was driving the alleged offending vehicle-Tractor without its head-lights, but has admitted at paragraph-14 of his 3 cross-examination that the alleged offending vehicle-Tractor was in its side. 5. Yoganand (PW-5), in whose vehicle, the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider, has stated that because of darkness, he was not aware how the alleged offending vehicle, i.e. tractor, was being driven. He deposed further that at the relevant point of time, the alleged tractor was being driven in its side and has denied the fact that at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it was stated by him that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by said Yoganand. Further of his testimony would reveal the fact that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven slowly. 6. From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it, thus, appears that none of the witnesses have stated that at the relevant point of time, the alleged offending vehicle, i.e. Tractor bearing Registration No.CG-04-DA-2168, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent and dashed the alleged motorcycle, i.e.TVS XL No.CG-04-KT-7270, where the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider and, even the statement of said Yoganand, who was driving the said motorcycle, the alleged offending vehicle, i.e. tractor was found to be driven slowly. 7. In view of above and, in absence of any evidence led by the prosecution showing that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the 4 commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane