• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mohan Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) v. • Kamal Narayan Mishra S/o Hem Prasad Mishra, Aged About 39 Years R/o Gali
Case Details
1 CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.21 18:07:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:34266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 32 of 2023 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mohan Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus • Kamal Narayan Mishra S/o Hem Prasad Mishra, Aged About 39 Years R/o Gali No. 5, Goura Choura, R/o Raju Sahu, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent : None, though served. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 18/07/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27/02/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G) in R.C.C. No.12039/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted 2 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 (2 counts) of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 15.12.2016, a report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the complainant-Lalit Kumar Baghela before the Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, alleging therein, that on 21.11.2016 at about 20:15 hours, when he was returning home along with his wife-Smt. Sangeeta Bhghela from the Indira Market, Durg by his Activa/Honda bearing Registration No.CG-07-LB-4235, at that particularly time, the respondent-Kamal Narayan Mishra while driving his motorcycle-Discover, bearing its Registration No.CG-25- C-3601, in a rash and negligent manner dashed his vehicle from its back side, owing to which, he and his wife fell down and sustained serious injuries on their shoulders and other part of their bodies. He and his wife both were admitted into the hospital of one Dr. Kothari, where treatment of theirs were made from 21/11/2016 upto 29/12/2016 and injuries sustained by them were found to be grievous in nature, as the shoulder of the complainant- Lalit Kumar was found to be fractured vide MLC report (Ex.P-8), while there was strained in the shoulder of his wife vide MLC report (Ex.P-9). 3) Based upon the aforesaid report, an FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.637/2016 and during investigation, motorcycle-Discover bearing Registration No.CG-25- C-3601 owned by the respondent-Kamal Narayan Mishra was recovered from him vide Ex.P-5 on 19.12.2016, along with its RC 3 Book, Driving License and the Insurance Papers and, after completing the usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and thereafter, based upon the materials available on record, the trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 279 and 338 (2 counts) of IPC and, the charges, so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there are material discrepancies in the statement of the complainant- Lalit Kumar Baghela (PW/1) and the eye-witnesses, namely, Devendra Kumar (PW/4) and Ravindra Singh Chane (PW/5), therefore, the respondent, cannot be held guilty for the commission of the alleged crime and accordingly, he was acquitted and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent has not dashed the complainant while driving the alleged vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is, apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the complainant-Lalit Kumar Bhagela (PW-1), his wife Smt. Sangeel Bhagela (PW/2) and the eye-witnesses, namely, Devendra Kumar (PW/4) and Ravindra Singh Chane (PW/5), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 4 6) No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent, despite service of notice of this appeal. 7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent-Kamal Narayan Mishra has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 (2 counts) of IPC. According to the prosecution, the respondent-Kamal Narayan Mishra, while driving his motorcycle-Discover bearing Registration No.CG-25-C- 3601 in a rash and negligent manner has dashed the vehicle of the complainant-Lalit Kumar Baghela from its back side on 21.11.2016 when he was returning home along with his wife-Smt. Sangeeta Bhghela, owing to which, they sustained grievous injuries. 9) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the complainant-Lalit Kumar Baghela was examined as PW/1 and it appears from his testimony that on the said fateful day, he was returning home along with his wife by his Activa/Honda and at that particular time, the respondent while driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner dashed him from its backside, though he was turning his vehicle while giving signals, owing to which, they sustained grievous injuries. His wife-Smt. Sangeeta Baghela (PW/2), however, deposed in her cross-examination that it was dashed from its opposite direction. There is, thus, gross disparity in their testimonies regarding the mode of the alleged accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the said day, the vehicle driven by her 5 husband was dashed from its backside by the respondent-Kamal Narayan Mishra, while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as stated by her husband-Lalit Kumar Baghela. 10) Now, insofar as, the statement of eye-witness Devendra Kumar (PW/4) is concerned, it appears that the respondent has dashed the vehicle of the complainant-Lalit Kumar Baghela while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but the another eye-witness, namely, Ravindra Singh Chane (PW/5) was, however, not aware how the vehicle in question was being driven by the respondent and, after declaring him hostile, it was stated by him that the respondent- Kamal Narayan Mishra while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner has dashed the vehicle of the complainant-Lalit Kumar Baghela. Although, it was stated as such, but it appears from his cross-examination para 6, that, in fact, he has not seen how the alleged incident was occurred, as he has seen the alleged incident after its occurrence. 11) Pertinently to be noted here further that the alleged accident was occurred on 21/11/2016, but the report was lodged by the complainant- Lalit Kumar only on 15/12/2016. There is, thus, delay of 25 days in lodging the report and, the explanation given by the complainant was that since he was under the treatment, therefore, the alleged delay was carried. The explanation of him is, however, noted to be un-acceptable as he was discharged from the hospital on 29/12/2016, i.e. after lodging the report (Ex.P-1) on 15/12/2016. The explanation as was given by him, thus appears to be rather a 6 false one. That apart, the alleged accident was seen by two eye witnesses, namely, Devendra Kumar (PW/4) and Ravindra Singh Chane (PW/5), but, none of them have, however, lodged the report. The prosecution has, thus, failed to explain the proper explanation in lodging the report. 12) In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, as observed herein- above, it, thus, appears that there is not only gross disparities in their testimonies, but there is delay of 25 days in lodging the report and no proper explanation to this effect was made and, instead, was found to be a false one. In view of such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that on that particular day, the complainant was dashed by the respondent while driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner, so as to hold the respondent guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 (2 counts) of IPC. 13) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Chandrakant -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge