Dismissed

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Himmatlal Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2024CRMP/498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal. However, it dismissed the main appeal holding that the trial court's view was possible and not perverse, thus barring interference under supreme court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal allowed for delay; we seek leave to appeal dismissed; acquittal appeal dismissed.

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Himmatlal Yadav — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 498 of 2023

¶5

The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant/Petitioner Versus

¶7

Himmatlal Yadav S/o Malgovind Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Amadipa Kamarima, Police Station Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶10

____ For Appellant/Petitioner: Mr. B. D. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on board

¶12

09.04.2024

¶13

Heard Mr. B. D. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicant/State on I.A. No. 1 of 2023, which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the Cr.M.P./Appeal.

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 is allowed and delay of 48 days in filing the Cr.M.P./appeal is condoned.

¶15

¶16

The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26-09-2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 237/2018 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25-01-2018 at about 3.00 p.m., when the complainant Krishna Yadav (P.W. 4) was coming to village Bagicha alongwith his wife by his motorcycle, near Bhattikona-Khaderan turning, he stopped his motorcycle after seeing the bus coming from opposite side and that very moment the respondent/accused Himmatlal Yadav who also came from opposite side, dashed the complainant by driving of his motorcycle rashly and negligently and fled away. By the accident, the complainant received grievous injuries on his body and on his report, the police has registered the offence and after usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur. The learned Trial court has framed charges under Section 279, 338 of I.P.C. and Section 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, respondent/accused were put to face charges. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 04 witnesses in its favour.

¶18

¶19

After appreciating the evidences available on record , the learned trial Court has not found sufficient evidence for conviction of the respondent/accused and acquitted him from the charged offences vide impugned judgment and order dated 26-09-2022, hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

¶20

Mr. B. D. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the applicant/State would submit that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that from the evidence of the complainant Krishna Yadav, P.W. 4, the guilt of the respondent/accused has duly been proved yet the learned trial court discarded his evidence. He being the injured witness, duly supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial court should have consider his evidence to be sufficient for holding conviction. He would further submit that the learned trial court has not considered the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for the examination of important witnesses and thereby, they came to an erroneous conclusion and acquitted the respondent/accused. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been considered by the learned trial Court in its proper perspective while acquitting the accused/respondent from the aforesaid offences. Thus, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent/accused from the aforesaid offence by recording a finding which is perverse to record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted.

¶21

¶22

I have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State and perused the documents submitted in the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶23

The learned trial court after considering the case in detail, has come into the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent/accused. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Tej Pratap Yadav, who is the witness of the seizure memo of the motorcycle from the respondent/accused but he stated in his crossexamination that he signed the seizure memo Ex. P-1 on the instruction of the police persons and the motorcycle was there at police station at the time when he signed the seizure memo. P.W. 2 Jagarnath Yadav, is the witness of seizure memo Ex. P-1 and arrest memo Ex. P-2, but he denied any seizure of motorcycle in his presence and said that he signed the arrest memo Ex.P-2 on the instruction of the police persons. P.W. 3 Nan Ram Soren, is the witness of seizure memo Ex. P-3. He has stated in his deposition that he does not know the appellant. He and the complainant Krishna Yadav were working with their employer Sajan Seth. The police have obtained his signature over some paper 3-4 years back. P.W. 4 Krishna Yadav, who is the complainant, has stated in his deposition that the appellant is his cobrother (Sadu) in relation. On the date of accident, he was coming from Rouni side by his motorcycle and the appellant was going towards Bagicha side. The appellant was behind the bus and while overtaking the bus, he dashed him by which he received injuries on his body. The

¶24

¶25

appellant was driving his vehicle at medium speed. He lodged the FIR against the accused. in cross-examination, he stated that he himself had not seen the appellant while driving the motorcycle. He further admitted that due to the collusion of both motorcycles, they fell on the ground and both of them have received injuries over their body. He further admitted that due to the bus, they could not see each other and if, the bus was not there, both of them might have seen each other and no accident would have occurred.

¶26

The investigating officer of the case has not been examined. There is no evidence on record that the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle without any driving licence and there is no evidence also to draw the proceeding against the respondent/accused under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no evidence that the respondent/accused asked to submit his driving licence or insurance policy of his motorcycle. Thus, there is no evidence to convict the respondent/accused and therefore, the learned trial court has acquitted him.

¶27

In this case, on the basis of rebuttable evidence of the complainant, the prosecution has failed to prove that on the date of incident, the accused has committed offence as alleged. Therefore, there is lacking of cogent and clinching evidence in the case in addition to say that there is no evidence. The acquittal of the respondent/accused is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence available on record.

¶28

¶29

Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial court, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal.

¶30

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶31

"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."

¶32

Further, in case of “Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala”, reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement at para 25, which reads as under :-

¶33

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., 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 analyzed. 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.”

¶34

¶35

After considering the material available on record as well as the well-reasoned judgement passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. I therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgement impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being devoid of merits the same is dismissed. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶39

Aadil

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Himmatlal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Himmatlal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samaru Manjhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chand Baig Vs Ganga Prasad Patre

Saurabh Singh Vs Surguja University

Amit Yadav Vs Manoj Kumar Yadav

Tulshi Steel Traders Vs Purva Construction

Neetu Sinha Vs Mukesh Sinha