2024:CGHC:34285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 519 of 2024

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dallirajhara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus

1 - Awadhram Vatti S/o Darbariram Vatti Aged About 22 Years R/o Kokan, Police Station Daundi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

04/09/2024

1. The present appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 46/2019 by the Court of J.M.F.C., Dallirajhara, District Balod (C.G.) acquitting the respondents from the charges punishable under Section 279, 337, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 22.10.2018 at 02.30 p.m., the accused while driving his truck hastily, rashly and negligently hit the jeep coming from opposite direction due to which passenger in the jeep got injured and one person namely Rafeeq Mohammad died against which Hasan Mohammad (PW-04) lodged an FIR against the truck driver and after due investigation, the Challan was filed before the concerned Court of law against the accused respondent under those Section. Thereafter, the charges have been leveled against the accused respondent under Section 279, 377, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, but the accused respondent has refused to accept the same and has sought for trial. Having been so charged the respondent abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses namely Ahmad Khan PW/1; Aghan Khan PW/2; Bhikham Singh PW/3, Hasan Mohammad PW/4, Sirin Kumar Naidu PW/5, Narayar Dhankar PW/6, Komal Kumari Bai PWN, Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar PW/8, Pradeep Kumar Dewangan PW/9, Narsingh Sahu (Sub Inspector) PW/10, Ashwini Kumar Patel PW/11 in its favour. After appreciating the evidence on record learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent and, therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged.

4. Learned Counsel for the State contended that though the scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very much limited but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re- appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He further contended that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondents from the offences charged and the testimony of witnesses would clearly make out offence under Section 279, 337, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code;

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not suffer any legal infirmity.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

7. On perusal of record, it transpires that the question for consideration in the case is:

Did the accused endangered human life by driving the vehicle truck no. CG 08 AG 8090 negligently or rashly on 22.10.2018 between 14.30 and 15.00 hrs. in Rajhara police station area, Balod district, Chhattisgarh, on the main road of Chorhapadav village, which is a public highway and caused the death of Rafiq Mohammed, who was travelling in the vehicle jeep number CG 04 ZD 0562?

8. Ahmed Khan (PW1) has stated that on the date of the incident at about 02.00 pm he was going from Rajhara to Daundi in his Commander Jeep, there were two-four passengers in his vehicle. He has given the number of his jeep as CG 04 ZD 0562. The same witness has further stated that, when he reached near Chorha stop, a truck