1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Outpost Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari v. 1 - Mangal Singh S/o Manbodhi Singh Dhuri, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ramnagar
Case Details
1 NAFR Reserved on 01.07.2025 Pronounced on 07.08.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 478 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Outpost Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant versus 1 - Mangal Singh S/o Manbodhi Singh Dhuri, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ramnagar, Near Buddha Vihar, Police Station Gudiyari District Raipur Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. A. G. Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short “CrPC”) is against to a judgment of acquittal dated 05.10.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.1233/2011 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) (for short “JMFC”) by the impugned judgment, learned JMFC has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant Mukesh Kumar Sahu 2 is resident of Lalpur in front of MMI Hospital, Raipur and is a driver. The father of the complainant is the driver of Maruti Van Ambulance bearing No. CG 04/ HB 2609. On 18.02.2011 at about 7:00 PM, when he was going to Dhamtari from Raipur along with passengers Vijay Singh Thakur, Village Dashrangpur Kawardha, Dilip Yadav, Chunnilal Sagarvanshi Lalpur Raipur, then at about 9:00 pm ahead of Abhanpur about 7 km on National Highway No.43 towards Kurud, an unknown driver of a Tata S Goods Carrier No. CG 04/ J.B./ 8485 coming from opposite direction towards Kurud, while driving rashly and negligently came on the wrong side and collided with the said Ambulance causing an accident due to which the front part of his vehicle Maruti Van Ambulance No. CG 04/ H.B./ 2609 got badly damaged and Dilip, Chunnilal and Vijay Singh Thakur sitting with him got injured a lot. Somehow he also came out of the vehicle and asked for help from the nearby people and informed Daya Bhai about the incident. After some time a Police Patrolling vehicle came there and the injured persons were sent to the Raipur Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he received information that, during the treatment, one Vijay Singh Thakur died at MMI Hospital Lalpur, Raipur thereafter he lodged a report at Police Station Birejhar on 24.02.2011 thereafter Crime No.96/2011 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC at Police Station Magarlod and the investigation was set on motion. Spot Map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The statement of the accused/respondent under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 3 4. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence acquitted the accused/ respondent by the judgment impugned which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ State submits that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned JMFC is absolutely perverse, bad in law and liable to be set aside. He submits that evidence brought by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by learned trial Court to arrive to a finding of acquittal of respondent/accused. He further submits that from the statement of complainant- Mukesh Kumar Sahu, it is apparent on record that offending vehicle No. CG 04 JB 8485 has dashed to the ambulance resulting into death of two persons and injuries to other persons. He submits that learned JMFC has overlooked Ex. P-8 which clearly demonstrate that the offending vehicle was driven by the respondent/ accused. He further submits that the finding with regard to the offending vehicle was not seized is absolutely perverse as the offending vehicle was seized from the owner which is also reflected from the seizure memo (Ex. P-11), the death of persons have been duly proved from the postmortem report and injuries are also proved from the medical report, therefore, the finding of acquittal may be set aside convicting the respondent for the aforesaid offences and adequate sentence may be imposed upon the respondent/ accused. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused supported the impugned judgment and submits that the finding of learned JMFC is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. He submits that in the FIR, name of the respondent/accused was not mentioned and the complainant (PW-1) in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC has not named the appellant whereas he has improved the statement before the learned JMFC which creates doubts on the testimony of the complainant (PW-1). He further submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses and therefore benefit of doubt was extended to the respondent/ accused and well merited finding recorded by the JMFC does not require any interference and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 8. The law is well settled that the power of appellate Court is made enough to appreciate the evidence and arrive to its own conclusion. The law is also settled that two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should be adhered to if the finding of acquittal recorded is based upon conjecture and surmises and is absolutely perverse to the evidence available on record, the interference can be made in judgment of acquittal. Firstly this Court would deal as to whether the finding recorded by learned JMFC can sustain the scrutiny of this Court. Learned JMFC has given the benefit of doubt to the respondent and came to a conclusion that the vehicle which was being used in the accident ought to have been seized. On assessment of evidence the order of acquittal was passed. 9. The initiation of investigation was from the FIR which is exhibited as Ex. P-10 lodged by the complainant (PW-1). In the FIR the registration number of the offending vehicle is categorically mentioned. The death which has been caused in the said accident is also proved by the postmortem report Ex. P-10. The injuries sustained by the injured in the accident is also proved by MLC and the other relevant documents ranging from Ex. P-8 & P-9. Therefore, the question of happening of the incident resulting into the death and injuries is apparent on record. Apart from this the respondent/accused has taken a defence that it is the driver of the ambulance who has caused the accident by rash and negligent driving, for that purpose he has exhibited the FIR and papers of the investigation carried out ranging from Ex. D-1 to D-8. Now the factum of accident is no longer remains in dispute. Now the question comes as to whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the respondent/ accused on the basis of evidence available on record to hold him guilty under the aforesaid offences. In this context, the statement of complainant- Mukesh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) is relevant. In his deposition before the Court he has categorically stated that he knows the respondent/accused Mangal Singh and he also knows deceased Vijay Singh and Chunnilal. He also deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 18.02.2011 he was going to Dhamtari to drop a patient from Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Six persons were boarded in the ambulance including 5 the deceased and injured. He specifically deposed that near after some distance from Birejhar, the driver of the offending vehicle driving at a high speed, came on the conductor’s side wrong side and dashed the ambulance vehicle resulting into injuries to the persons traveling in it. He further deposed that Dilip sustained fracture on his both legs and one Vijay Singh who was accompanying the patients also sustained injuries. With the help of villagers, he stopped a goods carrier vehicle and at the same time Police arrived. Thereafter he along with Chunni lal, Dilip and injured Vijay were taken to MMI Hospital Raipur for treatment. During treatment Vijay Kumar and Chunni lal died. He was also treated in MMI Hospital on account of injury sustained on his head. He lodged a written report of the incident (Ex.P-1) to Kurud Police Station. He also happened to prove the Spot Map (Ex. P-2). He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, in which he states that he has seen the respondent/accused at the place of incident when he came out of the vehicle that caused the accident. The incident took place on 18.02.2011 at about 7-7:30 pm. He reached to the spot between 7-7:30 pm. He has admitted that it was dark at the time of incident. It is also true that while passing near the place of incident, a big vehicle, a truck was coming from the front and its headlights coming from the front were on. It is denied that the headlight of a truck is brighter than those of a van. Tata Vehicle was coming at a distance of about 250 meters from the truck. This witness now says that the distance of the Tata S Vehicle was about 7-8 meters. It is true that he could see the Tata S coming from a distance behind the truck. It is denied that the entire vehicle was not visible at that time, only the headlight of the Tata S vehicle was visible. At the time of accident, he was driving the ambulance at a speed of about 50 kms. He could not tell about the speed of the truck. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was driven slowly. He deposed that after the accident the offending vehicle has gone down 4-5 meters from the road. He also admitted that he has seen a person in the offending vehicle who was the driver. He also admits that at the time of accident he has not seen the driver of Tata S. He voluntary stated that after the accident respondent/driver Mangal Singh gone down then he saw him. He further 6 stated that on the date and place of incident he came to know about the name of respondent/accused. He himself stated that as the Police person come to the spot, the enquiry was made there for he came to know about the name. He also admitted that the police personnel informed that a case of accident was also lodged against him. From the evidence of this witness it is quite vivid on record that he has seen the accident and saw the respondent/accused getting down from the offending vehicle. 10. Learned JMFC came to a finding that as the offending vehicle was not seized, it creates doubt on the prosecution story. From perusal of record Ex. P-11 it appears that the papers of the document were seized. But the fact remains that the offending vehicle was not seized. From the documents exhibited by the respondent it is established on record that a criminal case was registered against the complainant Mukesh Kumar Sahu under Section 279, 337 of IPC. Complainant Mukesh in his statement before the learned JMFC tried to establish that it is the appellant who was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. But perusal of Spot Map (Ex.P- 2) clearly indicates that the accident occurred on the side of the offending vehicle and it also fell down beside the road. It also indicate that the road is a National Highway and offending vehicle was driven on its correct side i.e. side. The learned JMFC thus relied upon the Ex. P-2 and given the benefit of doubt to respondent. 11. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 12. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 10 7 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 13. The finding recorded by the learned JMFC can’t be said to be perverse or contrary to record. The view taken by the learned JMFC is a possible view and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. 14. Thus, appeal fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.08.07 14:36:33 +0530 Parul (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE