1 CGHC010166162023 2026:CGHC:39599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 146 of 2023 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santosh Kurre S/o Late Lenulal Kurre Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kurra, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghose, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B. Hon’ble Justice Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order On Board 09.09.2026 1. This is an admitted appeal. 2. Though, the acquittal appeal has been listed for appearance of the respondent/ accused, as the warrant of arrest has been issued against him, however, considering the report submitted by the State along with the covering memo dated 09.09.2026 that the whereabout of the respondent/ accused could not be traced out as he is not residing in his given address SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.09.16 17:11:29 +0530 2 since 9-10 years, with the consent of the appellant/ State, the matter has been heard finally. 3. Present is an acquittal appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Raipur in Criminal Case No. 11402/2015, whereby the respondent/ accused has been acquitted from the offence of Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2015, the complainant Premlal Vishwakarma (PW/3) lodged a report to the Police that on 25.05.2015 at about 07.45 AM, his grand mother Pancho Bai was going to Talab, on the way the respondent/ accused dashed her by rash and negligent driving on his motor cycle bearing registration no. CG 04 DN 6009 by which she received grievous injuries and while taking to hospital, she died. FIR (Ex-P/2) was registered against the driver of the said motor cycle for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Inquest (Ex-P/5) was prepared by the Police in presence of the witnesses and the dead body of the deceased Pancho Bai was sent for its post mortem to Community Health Centre, Abhanpur, where Dr. Sudha Samual (PW/6) conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave her report (Ex-P/6). While conducting the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, she found injuries on her body including fracture of upper 1/3 of left leg bone, fracture of right knee joint with abrasion over it and also the fracture of left arm bone (humorous) and opined that the cause of death is shock and coma, as a result of injury on vital organ and the nature of death is accident. Spot map (Ex-P/3) was prepared by the Police. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The respondent/ accused was arrested and after completion of ususal investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and 3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned trial Court. 3 5. The learned Trial court has framed charges against the respondent/ accused for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. The respondent/ accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/ respondent under Section 313 of CrPC has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence laid by the prosecution, the respondent/ accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court from the alleged offence by the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2022 which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but for minor omission or contradictions, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and sufficient to hold him guilty for the alleged offence. The witnesses have categorically deposed about involvement of the respondent/ accused in offence in question. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is established that the respondent/ accused driven his motor cycle by rash and negligent driving and dashed the deceased by which she received injuries and ultimately died. The learned trial Court has erroneously given waitage to the minor discrepancies in the offence of the witnesses and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from material irregularity and illegality which is liable to be set aside and the respondent/ accused may be convicted for the alleged offence. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial court. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence laid by the 4 prosecution and by giving benefit of doubt to the respondent/ accused, he has been acquitted. With respect to the claim of perversity of the impugned judgment, in view of the evidence available on record, this Court re-examine the evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. (PW/3) Prem Lal Vishwakarma, who is the complainant, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, his grand mother Pancho Bai was going to Talab to take bath. At that time, two persons were going from Naya Para to Patewa by their motor cycle. He could not tell as to who was driving the motor cycle. At the time of accident, he was at Talab and when he came on the spot, the mob was gathered there. His grand mother was being taken to hospital by Ambulance, thereafter, he lodged report to the Police. He was declared hostile and then he stated that in his police statement (Ex-P/2), he disclosed about rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the respondent/ accused. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has not witnessed the accident and since, he was not present there, he could not tell as to who was driving the motor cycle at that time and in what manner it was being driven. 12. (PW/1) Umendra Yadav, who is the neighbour of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, when Pancho Bai was going to talab, the respondent/ accused, in the influence of liquor by driving his motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased Pancho Bai by which she fell down on the road and received injuries. While taking to hospital, she died. At this stage, he was also declared hostile. In cross- examination, he admitted that when he was attending the final rites of the deceased Pancho Bai, he was being informed by the other persons about the manner of accident which he disclosed about the police. He admitted that he did not know about the respondent/ accused. He further admitted that in his police statement (Ex-D/1) he disclosed that the respondent/ accused was in drunken condition and if it is not there, he could not tell the reason. He also 5 admitted that he witnessed the accident and if it is not there in his police statement (Ex-D/1), he could not tell the reason. From perusal of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex-D/1), it is not stated by him specifically that he witnessed the accident. 13. (PW/2) Rohit, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, the respondent/ accused, by rash and negligent driving of his motor cycle, dashed the deceased lady by which she fell down and then he called the ambulance through mobile phone. However, she died while taking to hospital in Ambulance. She could not remember the registration number of the offending vehicle. She too have declared hostile and then he admitted the vehicle number on the suggestion given by the prosecution. In cross- examination, he admitted that in his Police Statement (Ex-D/2), he disclosed that he witnessed the accident, but if it is not there, he could not tell the reasons. 14. (PW/4), Mohan, who is also the villager, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when the deceased was going to Talab, the respondent/ accused caused accident by his motor cycle. She was being taken to hospital and after about 5 days, she died. He could not stated about the manner in which the respondent/ accused was driving the vehicle. When the leading question was being asked by him with respect to the inquest and post mortem report. In cross-examination he admitted that Pancho Bai has died about on 15 days of accident. He admitted that after accident, number of persons gathered there including him. He could not tell who were the persons gathered on the spot. 15. PW/5, state in his evidence that on the date of incident, deceased Pancho Bai was received accidental injuries who was initially being taken to house and thereafter, to the hospital. At the time, when he received information about the accident, she was lying on the side of the road. When the leading question was also asked from him about his police statement, in which he 6 disclosed that he saw the injuries on her body and while shifting to hospital she died. He has not seen the motor cycle on the spot. He is unknown about the respondent/ accused. He admitted that since the respondent/ accused is resident of his village, he only knew him. 16. (PW/7) Ramu Vishwakarma, has also declared hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. 17. (PW/6) Dr. Sudha Samual, who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and proved the post mortem report (Ex-P/6) and also proved that the deceased died due to accidental injuries. 18. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no material inconsistencies about involvement of the respondent/ accused in the offence and driving the said motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, there is no clinching or corroborative evidence of the witnesses which demonstrates unerringly that it is the respondent/ accused none other him who driven the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner in caused accident by which the deceased Pancho Bai died. After considering the nature of evidence, the learned trial Court by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the respondent/ accused from the alleged offence. The consideration of the learned trial Court is one of the plausible view, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 19. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 7 20. Further, in case of “Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala”, reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement at para 25, which reads as under :- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 21. After considering the material available on record as well as the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and being conscious of the settled legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra), that in an appeal against acquittal, if the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible and plausible view on the basis of the evidence available on record, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal and the same cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible, this Court has carefully re- examined the evidence available on record. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, has rightly found that there was no clinching or corroborative evidence establishing unerringly that it was the respondent/accused who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the alleged accident. The evidence of the material prosecution witnesses suffered from material inconsistencies and several of them were declared hostile, while the complainant himself admitted that he had not witnessed the accident and could not state as to who was driving the motorcycle or in what manner it was being driven. In such circumstances, the 8 learned Trial Court, by extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused, took a possible and plausible view on the basis of the evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. I, therefore, am of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika