Order on Board

06.11.2023

1) This appeal has been filed under Section 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for Short Cr.P.C) has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03/02/2015 passed in Criminal Case No. 3981 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Raipur (C.G) by which the respondent/ accused was acquitted for the charges for an offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).

2) Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 19/08/2012, the injured Rajuram Bais (PW-1) was coming back to his house at Chhattisgarh Nagar Raipur, after dropping his wife and children to village Boriakala, riding on his Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-C-2-9350. At about 7.15 pm in the evening, as he reached chocolate factory near the canal culvert, the respondent/ accused driving the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-DK-1372 rash and negligently and dashed to the motorcycle of the injured, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his nose, head and above the eyes. His Motorcycle also damaged. Then 108 vehicle was immediately called and he was taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospital for treatment. On the basis of report of the complainant, a crime was registered and the investigation was set on motion. During the course of investigation, injured Rajuram (PW-1) was medically examined and statement of the injured and the witnesses were recorded, spot map of the incident was prepared. The respondent/ accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court.

3) The respondent /accused was charged for offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the IPC, he denied the charges and claimed for trial. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the respondent/ accused, examined as many as 7 witnesses and the statement of the respondent/ accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence material on record, acquitted the respondent/ accused from the aforesaid charges by the impugned judgment.

4) Mr. Alok Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant/State vehemently argued that from the statement of the injured Rajuram Bais (PW-1), the case against the respondent/ accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the offending vehicle was seized and the seizure has also been proved and from the evidence collected by the prosecution including Dr. S.N. Maradia, (PW-6), the injured suffered grievous injuries including fracture. Therefore, he prays that the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent/accused may be set aside and the respondent/

accused may be convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced suitably.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent accused argued that from the injured Rajuram Bais, (PW-1) has not stated in his statement that it is the respondent/accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly or negligently. It is not brought on record that the alleged accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent/accused. After scanning the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent/ accused. He further submits that once the respondent/ accused has secured an order and judgment of acquittal, the finding recorded by the learned trial court shall not be disturbed until and unless it is perverse and absolutely contrary to the record.

6) Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

7) The injured Rajuram Bais was examined as PW-1, he has stated in his statement that when he reached near the culvert of Chocolate factory from Motorcycle driving rashly with high speed from the front side dashed to him. He fell down and suffered certain injuries on his mouth, right eyes and had a