The State sought leave to appeal against a trial court acquittal in an industrial furnace blast case causing deaths and burn injuries. The sole prosecution witness had turned hostile and no evidence connected the accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on appellate caution against reversing acquittals, leave was refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 258 of 2024
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh
Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Punjipathra, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- applicant
Versus
1 - Sampat Giri Goswami S/o Prem Giri Goswami Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kaitha, Police Station Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Gayatri Rolling Mill, Gerwani, Police Station Punjipathra, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant/ State : Mr.B.D. Guru, Addl.Advocate General
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board
10.04.2024
1. This is an application under Section 378 (3) of Cr.PC for grant of leave to appeal.
2. The present application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 25/01/2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharghoda, Dist- Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 566 of 2016 whereby the respondent/ accused has been acquitted from the charge of Section 287, 337 (4 times) and 304-A of the I.P.C.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22/12/2015 in the night in between 4 a.m. to 10 a.m., the furnace of Gaytri Rolling Mill, was got blocked. At about 10.15 a.m all of sudden, due to the supply of the current in the
2
said furnace which is said to have been switched on by the respondent/ accused, the accident occurred and the furnace was blast by which the hot metal was coming out from the furnace by which the labourers Ajbir, Ajay Singh, Narayan Yadav, Ravi Kumar, Punati, Bablu Kol had came into contact of the same and received burn injuries and Ajbir and Ajay Singh has lost their lives. After due investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/ accused before the learned trial Court on which the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 566/2016 was started. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 287, 338 (4 counts) and 304 -A of IPC. In para 1 and 10 of the impugned judgment the offence of section is mentioned as “337”, but in para 4, it has been mentioned as “338”. The appellant denied the charge, claimed trial and learned trial Court proceeded for recording of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses.
4. During trial, the prosecution has examined only one witness PW- 1 Ajit Pal, who too has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. He denied in his deposition that the accident was occurred due to negligence act of respondent/ accused. He admitted in his deposition that he is not in knowledge of any incident inside the plant. No other evidence led by the prosecution to establish the charges against the present respondent/ accused. Considering the material available on record and evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/ accused from all the charges.
5. Considering the evidence available on record, judgment is passed by learned trial court and acquitted the respondent/ accused. There is no evidence with respect to the involvement of respondent/ accused in
3
the offence in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala , reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 in Para 25 has held 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 termed 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 reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
considering the facts of the case and also in view of the about judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is not a fit case, in which the leave to appeal is to be granted to the appellant.
6. In the result, the application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed
and consequently, the acquittal appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
Sagrika
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 287, 338 and 304-A IPC when the sole prosecution witness turned hostile.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶5
(2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh (through SHO, Police Station Punjipathra, Raigarh)
Sampat Giri Goswami
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
