Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1035 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Kamlesh Yadav S/o Ramvilash Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Obara, Post Panari, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 19/06/2025 : 1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.6.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur at Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Criminal Case No.269/2018 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 279, 338 & 304-A of the IPC. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.06.20 13:19:40 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that Sushil Mahant (PW-6) along with his wife Laxmi Mahant was going on his TVS Moped on 11.6.2018 at about 10 am from his home at Subhash Nagar to Santoshi Nagar. At that time, near main road, the respondent/accused came from behind while driving the truck bearing registration No.CG-15 DH 0784 rashly and negligently and dashed against his moped and caused injuries to him and his wife. However, due to injuries, his wife died on the spot. 3. Gurudas Mandal (PW-2) has lodged an FIR (Ex.-P/3) against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.CG-15 DH 0784 at PS Ramanujganj vide Crime No.69/2018. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/5. Damaged moped was seized vide Ex.-P/6. Owner of the truck sent a letter vide Ex.-P/8 stating that at the relevant time, the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle. Registration and other papers were seized vide Ex.-P/7. The offending vehicle was seized vide Ex.-P/9. The postmortem was conducted vide Ex.-P/10. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, he has pleaded false implication and has 3 not adduced any defence evidence. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow this Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment of acquittal. He submits that driver of the offending vehicle was not identified and even negligence has not been established. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the said charges. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. It is well established that to constitute either of the offence under Sections 279 or 304-A of the IPC, proof of criminal rashness or criminal negligence is essential. In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime. To constitute civil liability, simple lack of care is not enough and for liability under the criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved. 4 9. In the matter of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan {(2012) 9 SCC 284}, the following has been observed at paras-10 & 11:- “10. ……………………………………………………. (a) what is rash and negligent driving; and (b) whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to ‘rash and negligent driving’ within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words ‘manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life’. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted. 11. ‘Negligence’ means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the 5 attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.” 10. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the FIR has been lodged against the driver of the offencing vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15 DH 0784 vide Ex.-P/3 by Gurudas Mandal (PW-2), who has deposed that when he reached to the spot, Sudhir Saxena (PW-7) and others informed him about the details of the truck number and thereafter he has lodged the FIR whereas, (PW-7) Sudhir Saxena has not stated as to in what manner the accident took place. However, he would depose that he has given the truck number to the police. 11. (PW-8) Mithilesh Tiwari has stated that after the accident, driver of the offending truck fled away along with the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15 DH 0784. They had chased the vehicle but they could not catch the said vehicle. When they reached to the police station, they saw that the truck as also the driver was present in the Police Station. 12. Injured witness namely, (PW-6) Sushil Mahant has also not identified the respondent/accused whereas owner of the offending vehicle namely, (PW-9) Pramod has only deposed that the respondent/accused is the driver of the vehicle, but in cross- examination, he admits that his brother was supervising the business of vehicles. He further admits that his brother was having only 6 information as to who is the driver and conductor of the vehicle on a particular date. 13. On screening of the entire evidence, it appears that no evidence is available on record on the basis of which it could be said that at the relevant time the respondent/accused was driving the offending vehicle. Furthermore, the injured (PW-6) Sushil Mahant has stated that at the time of accident, he was not riding his moped on the road and he was riding the said moped on Kachcha Road. However, perusal of the spot map (Ex.-P/5) would show that the accident occurred in the middle of the road as at ‘A’. This witness has only deposed that the vehicle was in high speed. 14. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. Moreover, it is equally settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See : Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] & V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617].
Decision
15. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Barve