##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14029 Digitally signed b y NAFR

AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date:

2026.03.24 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

16:54:33 +0530

ACQA No. 204 of 2015 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police

Station Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

...Appellant

versus • Hiralal, S/o Horilal, aged about 26 Years, R/o Katghora, District Korba,

Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Judgment on Board

24.03.2026

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against

the judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba in Criminal Case No. 1886/2000, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal

Code (for short, “IPC”) by extending the benefit of doubt.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.10.2000 at about 1:00

p.m., respondent/accused- Hiralal was driving a truck bearing registration No. CIL-5338 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’) near

2

village Tanakhar and at the relevant time, several labourers were travelling in the offending vehicle. It is alleged that the respondent drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused it to overturn, as a result of which, Bhuwan Singh sustained serious injuries and subsequently died, and other persons travelling in the offending vehicle also sustained injuries. On the basis of the report (Ex.P-4) lodged by PW-2 Shaniram at Police Station Katghora, an offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against the respondent. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed

before the trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/respondent

under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. The accused/respondent denied

the charges, abjured the guilt, and prayed for trial.

4. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and

appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment

acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges leveled against him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial

Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent despite there being sufficient and cogent evidence on record. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution and have clearly stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver/respondent. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the

accused/respondent be convicted accordingly.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned

judgment and submits that there is no cogent evidence on record to

3

establish that accused/respondent was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have themselves admitted that they were not aware of the speed of the offending vehicle. It is, therefore, contended that the learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the said charges, which calls for no

interference by this Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State

of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of

interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. 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