1 CGHC010165812023 2026:CGHC:36611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 147 of 2023 Order Reserved on : 10.07.2026 Order Delivered on : 17.08.2026 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus • Rakesh Sahu S/o Parmeshwar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Jhalfa, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (CAV Judgment) 1. The appellant State has preferred this acquittal appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 56/2021 by which the learned Sessions Judge Bemetara has acquitted the accused from commission of offence under Section 304 Part-I and II of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that the marg intimation under Section MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.08.18 10:43:21 +0530 2 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Maro alleging that due to dash from back side with the Trailer No. CG 12 AX 6918, the driver of matador No. CG 13 UF 9841 Mahesh Kumar Dhruv was found dead. On the basis of marg intimation, information about crime was lodged by Tiharu Ram Dhruv before the Police Station Chawki Maro which was registered as Crime No. 0/2021 for commission offence under Section 304 of the IPC against the driver of Trailer No. CG 12 AX 6918. It has been alleged by the informer that on 13.01.2021 his son namely Mahesh Kumar Dhruv was working as driver of Mazda vehicle bearing registration No. CG 13 UF 9841 and on the faithful day, he has to go to Pali after loading the vehicle and at about 01:30 AM when he reached at Narayanpur overbridge, the Trailer bearing registration No. CG 12 AX 6918 which was deliberately parked without indicator or stoppers in the middle of National Highway No. 130 though there was a fast movement of the vehicles on the said road, knowing that the vehicles which are having fast movement may dashed with this standing trailer and may cause death also of drivers. It has also been alleged that the deceased due to the lights of the vehicle coming from the opposite side could not see the standing truck, therefore, it has dashed the truck causing injury to the vehicle as well as death of the driver. On the basis of information an FIR bearing Crime No. 15/2021 was registered on 13.01.2021 by the Police Station Nandghat, District – Bemetara (C.G.) against the driver of Trailer No. CG-12-AX-6918 for commission of offence under Section 304 of IPC. 3 3. After usual investigation, charge-sheet for commission of offence under Section 304 of IPC was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara (C.G.) who has committed the trial for disposal in accordance with law vide its order dated 14.07.2021 to the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) and registered as Session Trial No. 56/2021. The accused was arrested on 14.01.2021 and was released on bail on 21.01.2021. 4. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined as many as 04 witnesses namely - Kalyan Singh (PW-1), Ravi Yadav (PW-2), Prakash Das Manikpuri (PW-3) and Rajendra Kashyap, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-4) and also exhibited documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/14. The accused has neither examined himself nor examined any witnesses. 5. Rajendra Kashyap, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-4) who has exhibited the document from Ex. P/5 to P/14 and supported the case of the prosecution. The said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that the trailer with which the deceased’s vehicle collided was in a broken-down condition and he has also admitted that other vehicles were moving from the spot where the vehicle was standing. 6. On the basis of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused from the offences for which he was charged. Being aggrieved with this order, the State has filed this acquittal appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the 4 learned trial court has failed to see that the offence under Section 304 of IPC has been clearly made out by the prosecution as requisite intention in the form of knowledge is clearly attributed to the accused/respondent and he has not led any contrary evidence in this regard. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has clearly failed to appreciate that the overt act of the accused is sufficient to fall within the requisite intention in order to attract the offence for which the accused/respondent has been charged, as such, the trial Court should have convicted the accused and would pray for allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is legal, justified and the prosecution is unable to prove the essential ingredients for commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder to attract the offence under Section 304 Part-I and II of IPC and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no such material before the learned trial Court to frame charge under Section 304 of IPC. He would further submit that there was no intention on the part of the respondent to commit such offence, therefore, framing of charge itself was illegal. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that to charge any person for the offence under Section 304 of IPC, ingredients of Sections 299 and 300 of IPC must be present and if these ingredients are missing then the offence under Section 304 of IPC cannot be made out. 5 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the point emerged for determination by this Court is: “Whether the acquittal of the learned trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in acquittal appeal?” 12. To appreciate the point determined by this Court, it is expedient for this Court to go through the provisions of Section 304 of the IPC, which is reproduced below: “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.— Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 13. Thus, Section 304 IPC has got two parts. The first part is attracted if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. If the first part is attracted, then the punishment is either imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The second part of Section 304 IPC would be attracted if the act by which the death is caused is done with the knowledge that it is 6 likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. As such, the prosecution to prove the guilt of the respondent for commission of offence under Section 304-I of IPC should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent has committed the offence with an intention or knowledge or premeditation. 14. Now coming to the facts of the present case, from bare perusal of evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-4) wherein he has nowhere stated that the driver of the vehicle has kept the trailer in the middle of National Highway with intention or knowledge or premeditation to kill the deceased who was the driver of the vehicle though in the FIR it has been mentioned that if the vehicle was kept in the middle of the road knowingly that it may cause death of any person if any vehicle has dashed, as such the prosecution is unable to prove the essential ingredients to prove the commission of offence under Section 304 of IPC i.e. intention. Accordingly, the learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has recorded its finding in paragraph 11 that the prosecution is unable to prove the essential ingredients to attract offence under Section 304 of IPC. 15. This finding is neither perverse, contrary to the evidence nor suffers from illegality, but it is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anbazhagan vs. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police reported in 2024 (20) SCC 500, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:- 7 ………. (13) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, thefact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC." 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. Ramkumar vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, reported in AIR 2023 SC 4246 has reiterated the same principle. 17. Considering the law, evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that the prosecution is unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this this Court. 18. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that if one view has been taken by the trial Court which is in favour of the accused, normally the appellate Court should not interfere in the case of acquittal, unless the finding is so perverse that only one view of conviction is possible for the appellate Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Anr vs. State of Uttarakhand {2025 INSC 114} dealt with the issue when an appellate Court can interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and held in paragraph 12 as under:- 12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable 8 views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 19. In the present case, as observed by the learned trial Court, the prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence to show that the respondent has intention or knowledge or premeditation to kill the deceased to attract the offence under Section 304 of the IPC, therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in acquitting the respondent from the charges punishable under Section 304 of the IPC which warrants interference by this Court. 20. In the result, following order is passed:- (i) The acquittal appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court dated 14.09.2022 in Sessions Trial No. 56/2021 is affirmed. (iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish