1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Acquittal Appeal No. 126 of 2021

State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur

(C.G.)

---- Appellant

Versus

Vishnu Nishad, S/o Firantaram Nishad, aged about 37 years, R/o Near

Durga Mandir, Lingiyadih, R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Sarkanda, Police Station

Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

----Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

05.08.2021

(1)

Proceedings of the matter have been taken-up through Video

Conferencing.

(2)

Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2018 passed

by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 762/2015

acquitting the respondent/accused of the alleged commission of offence

punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3)

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that when complainant Narendra

Kumar Yadav (PW-9), who is working on the post of Stenographer in the Office of

2

Additional S.P., Bilaspur, was returning to his home from his office for taking

lunch in his Hero Honda Motor-cycle bearing registration No. CG 12-A 5269

(henceforth “Hero Honda Motorcycle”), at that time, respondent/accused, while

driving the Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10 D 4693 (henceforth “Tractor”)

rashly and negligently dashed to Hero Honda Motorcycle of complainant from

behind, as a result thereof, complainant sustained multiple/grievous injuries on

his both the hands and legs & backbone and his motorcycle was also got

damaged. Based on this, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered under Sections 279 & 337

IPC against the respondent/accused (driver of tractor). After filing of charge sheet

under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC, the trial Court stated the substance of

accusation under Sections 279 & 338 IPC to the respondent/accused.

(4)

So as to hold the respondent/accused guilty, the prosecution has

examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was

also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he

denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case,

pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

(5)

The trial Magistrate after hearing counsel for the respective parties and

considering the material available on record has acquitted the

respondent/accused as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of this order. Hence, this

acquittal appeal.

(6)

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State would submit that from

the evidence of Dhirendra Tiwari (PW-1), Ayodhya Prasad Pandey (PW-3) &

3

Narendra Yadav (PW-9) adduced by the prosecution, it is proved that

respondent/accused while driving the alleged tractor, committed the accident of

injured – Narendra Yadav (PW-9), despite that, learned trial Court has acquitted

the respondent/accused of the alleged offences, therefore, he prays to allow the

acquittal appeal and respondent/accused be convicted under Sections 279 & 338

of the IPC as there are sufficient material available on record calling for his

conviction.

(7)

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would

submit that none of the witnesses have stated in their evidence that at the time of

accident, respondent/accused was driving the alleged Tractor. He would further

submit that in criminal cases to hold the guild, it is required that conclusive proof

must be there in the record but in this case no such evidence have been

adduced by the prosecution, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted

the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of

the IPC, which does not call for any interference in the instant acquittal appeal.

(8)

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

available on record including impugned order with ut