Advocates:
['Anjinesh Shukla', '', 'Shaleen Singh Baghel', 'A G']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRR No. 43 of 2020

•

Raju Dhruw S/o Munnalal Dhruw Aged About 28 Years R/o

Rawabhata, Imli Chowk, Budhwari Bazar, Police Station

Khamtarayi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Applicant

Versus

•

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Telibandha,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Applicant

:

Shri Anjinesh Shukla, Advocate

For Respondent/State

:

Shri Anand Verma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri. Justice Gautam Chourdiya

Order On Board

07.01.2022

1.

In this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC, the

applicant is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated

25.11.2019 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur framing

charges under Sections 304 and 308 of IPC against him.

2.

As per the prosecution case, on 21.6.2019 complainant Kamlesh

Sen and Hitesh Jogi were going by their motorcycles towards

Fundhar. Momita Atterji was sitting on the motorcycle of Hitesh

Jogi. While they were going from Fundhar to Kushalpur, on the way

near a square the applicant driving vehicle Hyva bearing

registration No. CG 04 HT 8722 speedily in a rash and negligent

manner dashed vehicle Tata S. bearing No.CG 04 LV 9590

resulting in injuries to the passengers sitting therein. At some

distance, the applicant also badly hit the motorcycles of the

complainant and Hitesh Jogi as a result of which Momita Atterji

died on the spot whereas Hitesh Jogi and the complainant suffered

grievous injuries.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned

charge framing order runs contrary to the material available on

record. There was no intention or knowledge on the part of the

applicant to cause death of Momita Atterji. Even if the entire

prosecution case is taken as it is, at the most the applicant can be

charged under Section 304 A of IPC.

4.

Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Prabhakaran Vs. State of Kerala, (2007) 14 SCC 269; Naresh

Giri Vs. State of MP, (2008) 1 SCC 791 and the decision of the

High Court of Gujarat in Mayur Mukundbhai Desai Vs. State of

Gujarat and another, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1717.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the

impugned order.

6.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material

available on record.

7.

Considering the entire material collected by the prosecution in this

case, the contents of the charge sheet and the statements of the

witnesses, the only allegation against the applicant is that he drove

the vehicle at the square having too much movements in a high

speed negligently which resulted in death of one person and

injuries to others, keeping in view the judgments cited by the

applicant as mentioned in Para-4 above, this Court is of the

opinion that trial Court was not justified in charging the applicant

under Section 304 and 308 of IPC. Accordingly, the revision

petition is allowed in part and the impugned order is hereby set

aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for framing of

charge afresh on the basis of material available on record in

accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in the

judgments cited by the applicant as mentioned in Para-4 of this

order.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya)

Judge

yasmin