1 2026:CGHC:7934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 136 of 2022 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Om Prakash Sahu S/o Late Shri Dhallu Ram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Gaanjar, Police Station Baagbahar, District : Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Govt. Advocate appears alongwith Ms. Dipeshwari Mahilwar, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Rathore, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/02/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30/11/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.779/2018, whereby, the Respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.12 18:46:58 +0530 2 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC on the allegation that on 06/01/2018 in the evening around 7 PM, when Roshan Lal Sonwani, the injured, was coming from Mahasamund to village Mudhaina while driving his motorcycle alongwith his uncle, namely, Punit Ram, was dashed as soon as, he reached near the Belsonda pond by the respondent while driving his Tractor bearing registration No.CG04 DM 2697 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, said Roshan Lal and his uncle have sustained serious injuries and were admitted into the hospital. 3) It appears from perusal of the record that on account of the alleged incident, occurred on 06/01/2018 around 7 PM, an FIR (EX.P-1) was lodged by one Jagdish Sonwani (PW-1), the brother of the injured- Roshan Lal Sonwani on 08/01/2018 and, a bare perusal of it would show that he reached the spot and admitted his injured brother and uncle to the government hospital after receiving the occurrence of the alleged incident from his brother on telephone. He was, thus, not an eye witness, but when he (PW-1) was examined before the Court, it was, however, deposed that on the said fateful day, he was coming behind him. Therefore, he was aware regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident on the date of incident itself, yet no report was lodged by him immediately thereafter and has failed to offer any plausible explanation as to why delay has been occurred in lodging the alleged report (Ex.P-1). That apart, it reveals from his testimony that the alleged fact was, however, made by him for the first time, therefore, his statement 3 cannot be relied upon in order to hold that the alleged incident was occurred, as alleged by him in his report (Ex.P-1). 4) According to Punit Ram Kurre (PW-2), who is the uncle of injured- Roshan Lal and was coming alongwith him on his motorcycle from Mahasamund to village Mudhaina, the alleged incident was occurred by the respondent while driving his alleged tractor in a high speed from the opposite direction, but, a bare perusal of the Nazri Naksha (Ex.P-2), which was prepared on 13/01/2018 at the instance of said Jagdish (PW-1), it is difficult to hold that who was coming from which direction to which direction and, if the sign of arrow shown therein is taken into consideration, it would, then show that the injured-Roshan Lal was coming by his motorcycle, alongwith his uncle-Punit Ram on a wrong direction, as the place of incident is shown to be extremely in his right side. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon his testimony, as well as of his nephew, namely, Roshan Lal, as both have failed to establish the fact that the alleged incident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle-Tractor and, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials has, therefore, not erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 5) The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Chandrakant