Allowed

Naseeb Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2023CRR/133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the conviction and sentencing of the applicant for rash and negligent driving causing death. The Court held that the finding against the applicant was perverse, as witnesses failed to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is allowed; the applicant is acquitted of the charges.

Naseeb Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 133 of 2013

¶5

Order Reserved on : 15.06.2023

¶6

Order Pronounced on : 05.09.2023

¶7

Naseeb Khan, S/o Subhan Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No 07, Ganjpara, P.S. Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Applicant Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Tumgaon , Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. J.A. Lohani, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶12

C A V Judgment

¶13

The applicant has filed this criminal revision being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.02.2013 passed by 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.35/2012, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant herein against judgment dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.207/2011, whereby the learned trial Court

¶14

¶15

convicted the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and Section 146/196 of the Motoro Vehicle Act sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, 500/-, R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/-, plus default stipulation, respectively.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2011, Complainant Thanuram Sahu lodged written-report at Police Station – Tumgaon alleging therein that on 13.08.2021, when he was going along with Tejram Sahu on his motorcycle, at about 11-11.30 pm, near Gadaghat-nala, the offending vehicle jeep bearing registration No. CG-06-ZA-2008 coming from opposite direction driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed his motorcycle, as a result of which complainant Thanuram and Tejram sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, they were brought to Hospital at Mahasamund for treatment from where Tejram was referred to Raipur, where he succumbed to the injuries on 14.08.2021. Merg intimation 01/11 was recorded at Police station D.D. Nagar, Raipur. On the written complaint of Thanuram, an FIR bearing Crime No.196/2011 was registered under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC against the applicant.

¶17

After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicant under Sections 279, 337,

¶18

¶19

304-A of IPC and Sections 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and accordingly charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused/applicant.

¶20

So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶21

Vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2012 the trial Magistrate convicted the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and Section 146/196 of the Motoro Vehicle Act sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, 500/-, R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/-, plus default stipulation, respectively. The judgment of the trial Court has been confirmed by the appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 19.02.2013, hence this revision.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, poor villager and illiterate person aged about 28 years at the time of incident and been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The FIR was registered against unknown person. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its proper manner. There is no

¶23

¶24

involvement of the offending vehicle Jeep C.G.-06-ZA-2008 in the alleged incident, therefore, FIR was registered against unknown person and the accident caused due to own negligence of Tejram but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and wrongly convicted the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that eye-witnesses and the Complainant have not stated against the applicant, as such, the conviction passed by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with law.

¶25

Learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned and the both the Courts below have not committed any error of law while convicting the applicant.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

Bare perusal of FIR (Ex.P/2) goes to show that it was lodged by the Complainant on 17.08.2011, whereas the date of incident is 13.08.2011. Complainant Thanuram (PW/ 1) has stated in his evidence that he did not know the accused. He has only stated the number of vehicle CG-ZA2008. This witness has further stated that the speed of said vehicle Jeep was very high.

¶28

Lomas Sahu (PW/2) has also not identified the accused and

¶29

¶30

only stated about registration number of the jeep i.e. CG-06ZA-2008. He has also stated that after the incident they followed the vehicle and when they reached near Chhindoli, they saw the offending vehicle Jeep but driver was not present there. Motichand (PW/3), Lomesh Sahu (PW/4), Pappu Sahu (PW/5) and Thakur Ram (PW/9) have stated about the accident but they have not stated that the offending vehicle Jeep was being driven by the accused/applicant in rash and negligent manner.

¶31

Usha Sharma (PW/10) has stated in his evidence that the vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. CG-06-ZA-2008 was in her name but she sold the same to one Afzal Khan in the year 2006. This witness has admitted in her crossexamination that at present the vehicle Jeep is still registered in her name in the RTO Office. She did not know that who was driving the vehicle at the time of incident.

¶32

From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that all the witnesses have only stated about the incident and no one has stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accuse/applicant. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of eye witness properly. But the learned trial Court only on this ground that the accused/applicant was driving the offending vehicle convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections

¶33

¶34

279, 337, 304-A of IPC and Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This finding of the learned trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

¶35

In the result, the findings recorded by both the Courts below being perverse and not in accordance with law are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The instant criminal revision is allowed and the applicant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶36

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶37

pkd

Naseeb Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseeb Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkishor Mishra Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pooja Chandrakar Vs Avinash Dilliwar

Smt. Devkumari Vs Smt. Pardeshnin Bai

Rajendra Gawalani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Kumar Srivas Vs Smt. Kiran Srivas