The prosecution must prove the charge against the accused by adducing clinching evidence.

Order on Board

12/01/2022

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, an application for condonation of delay in filing the CRMP.

2. After due consideration, the delay in filing the CRMP is condoned.

3. This CRMP has been filed under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 13/07/2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 59/2017 by the JMFC, Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge framed under sections 279 and 304 (A) of the IPC.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent was arrested for the offence under Section 279 and 304 (A) of the IPC. It was alleged that the accused while driving motor cycle bearing No. CG10 Y 6724 rashly and negligently caused accident on 10/01/2017 at village Larkeni and due to that accident Amar Singh who was the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries and subsequently died during course of treatment at CIMS, Bilaspur on 16/01/2017. Crime No. 14/2017 was registered. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. In order to prove his case the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses whereas the defence has not adduced any witness and stated in his statement that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. By way of the impugned order the trial Court appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent from the charges framed against him.

5. Counsel for the State assailing the impugned judgment submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. Smt. Sukhmat Bai (PW3) has categorically stated that her son told her that the accused had been driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused accident. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. He prays to grant leave to appeal.

6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely.

7. Chandrika Prasad Lakra (PW1) has deposed that he was not having any information about the incident. Girdhari (PW2), father of the Deceased was informed about the incident by his grand daughter Mamta. Sukhman Bai (PW3), mother of the Deceased was also not present at the time of accident has specifically stated that she was not aware of how the accused was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident. Sohan (PW4), son of the Deceased reached to the place of occurrence after the incident.

8. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that there was no witness examined by the prosecution who had seen whether the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondent by adducing clinching evidence, so, the view taken by the trial Court is not liable to be interfered.

9. Accordingly, the instant petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.