1 2025:CGHC:41809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 94 of 2020 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Shivprasad Khalkho S/o - Shri Nehru Ram Khalkho Aged About 35 Years Pharsabahar, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At - Namnakala, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 19/08/2025 : 1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the CrPC against the judgment dated 27.8.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No.5657/2013 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 (2 counts) and 304-A of the IPC. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.08.19 16:49:49 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that Smt. Bini Devsiya (PW-2) has lodged an FIR at Police Station Ambikapur (Vide Ex.-P/1) wherein she has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 12th March, 2008 at about 9.15 pm near Deviganj, in front of Nishant Medical Store, Ambikapur, the respondent/accused while driving his Marshal vehicle bearing registration No.CG- 15B/1743 in a rash and negligent manner caused injury to the complainant and grievous injury to her son Raja (PW-4) and her husband namely, CB Joseph (PW-1) and also caused the death of Shauki. 3. Crime details form and sketch map were prepared vide Ex.-P/2. Motorcycle of the complainant in a damaged condition was seized vide Ex.-P/3. The offending vehicle and its registration & insurance papers were seized vide Ex.-P/4. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/5 & Ex.D/1, D/2). In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the respondent/accused has pleaded false implication and has not adduced any evidence. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 3 5. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the Appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused be convicted for the said charges. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses would show that there are material contradictions as to the manner of the accident. Although during investigation, damaged motorcycle of the complainant was seized vide Ex.-P/3, but the husband of the complainant namely, CB Joseph (PW-1) has deposed that on the date of the accident, they were moving in a rickshaw and has categorically denied that on the said date they were moving on motorcycle. Contrary to the aforesaid statement, his son namely, Raja (PW-4) has deposed that he and his father after parking their motorcycle were talking in front of Nishant Medical Store. The said witness namely, Raja has categorically deposed that at the time of the accident, who was driving the vehicle, he does not know. 8. Complainant (PW-2) Smt. Bini Devsiya has categorically denied that she has lodged any FIR vide Ex.-P/1 and also not admitted her signatures in the FIR (Ex.-P/1). She has further deposed that in her presence neither any sketch map (Ex.-P/2) was prepared nor her signatures were obtained. 9. In the case at hand, there is no clear evidence to show that at the time of accident, the respondent/accused was driving the 4 offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the complainant herself has denied that she has lodged any FIR or in her presence any sketch map was prepared. Considering the aforesaid infirmities, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the said charges. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and this Court does not find any good ground to take a different view of the matter. 11. In consequence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court. The Appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve