State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur v. Bhajan Ram

: Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 14/10/2025

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by appellant / State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) (henceforth referred to as the “trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.3608/2011, 2 whereby the respondent herein /accused has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.07.2009, the respondent / accused (henceforth referred to as “accused”) was going towards Ambikapur by driving the Rajdhani bus bearing registration No.C.G.-15-A-5250 (henceforth referred to as “bus”) rashly and negligently and dashed the motor cycle bearing registration No.CG-15- 3820, as a result thereof, the bus overturned. In the said accident, driver of motor cycle namely; Ram Prasad and pillion rider sustained multiple injuries, and later on, driver Ram Prasad died on account of the injuries sustained by him. Besahu Ram Gond, who was traveling in the bus, also sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Various other passengers traveling in the bus had also sustained injuries. Dehati Merg Report (Ex. P-1) and Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P-2) were recorded, inquest report (Ex. P-38 and Ex. P-4) of both the deceased were prepared, post mortem of dead body of both the deceased was conducted by Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW-15), in which, vide post mortem reports (Ex. P-14 & P-15), he opined that cause of death of both deceased was ‘coma’ because of respiratory failure. He has also opined that nature of injury was ‘accidental’.

2.1 MLC of injured persons namely; Ludhan Ram (PW-1), Brajesh Patel (PW-2), Yogendra Singh (PW-3), Shanta Kumar (PW-4), Shivnath (PW-5), Ramnarayan (PW-6), Premsay (PW-7), Dileshwar (PW- 8), Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 (repeat number)], Sattar Ram (PW-9), Suresh Kumar (PW-10), Kashti Bai (PW-11) and Varsha Porte (PW-12) was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Singh (PW-17), in which, vide his reports Ex. P-16 to P-32), he reported injuries found on the injured person as per their 3 respective reports. He also opined that Ludhan Ram (PW-1) had sustained grievous injuries vide X-ray report (Ex. P-16). FIR (Ex. P-35) was registered against the respondent/ driver of the Rajdhani bus for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses were recorded, offending bus and its documents were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-7), motor cycle was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-8), RC book of motor cycle and driving license of deceased Ram Prasad were also seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-41), driving license of respondent/driver of the bus was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-42), spot map (Ex. P-6) was prepared by police. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC was filed against the respondent / accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur.

3. Particulars of the offence was read and explained to the respondent by learned trial Court, in which, he abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. The statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial Court, in which, he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in prosecution’s evidence and claimed himself to be innocent. No defence witness has been examined in support of his defence.

5. After appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, hence, it acquitted the respondent herein of the alleged charges. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant / State would submit that accident occurred in the turning of Luchki Ghat and Brajesh Patel (PW-2), Premsay 4 (PW-7), Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 (repeat number)] and Sattar Ram (PW-9) have stated in their deposition that the respondent / accused was driving the bus in over speed in turning, therefore, it overturned. He would further submit that deposition of aforesaid witnesses have not been controverted in their cross-examination, despite that, learned trial Court has declined to accept their evidence and acquitted the respondent, whereas in said accident, not only more than 12 persons sustained injuries, rather two persons died. Hence, he prays that instant appeal may be allowed and the respondent may be convicted for charges levelled against him by setting the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

7. Though memo of appearance has been filed on behalf of respondent/accused, but despite repeated calls, none appears on his behalf.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the material available on record.

9. In instant case, the bus met with an accident as it collided with motor cycle driven by Ram Prasad, as a result thereof, the bus also overturned on the spot as there was sharp turning on the road. Ludhan Ram (PW-1), Brajesh Patel (PW-2), Yogendra Singh (PW-3), Shivnath (PW-5), Ramnarayan (PW-6), Premsay (PW-7), Dileshwar (PW-8), Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 (repeat)], Sattar Ram (PW-9), Suresh Kumar (PW-10), Kashti Bai (PW-11) and Varsha Porte (PW-12) have stated in their deposition that they were traveling in the bus and in the accident, they have sustained injuries. Their medical examination was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Singh (PW-17) and vide MLC reports (Ex. P-16 to P-32), he has opined that aforesaid victims have sustained multiple injuries. He has proved X-ray report (Ex. P-16) of Ludhan Ram (PW-1) only, who has been 5 reported to have sustained fracture. No grievous injury has been proved to be sustained by other injured passengers. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of the injured witnesses and medical evidence of Dr. Sanjay Singh (PW-17) along with MLCs report prepared by him, it is found proved that aforesaid witnesses, who were traveling in the bus, have sustained injuries and from them, Ludhan Ram (PW-1) has sustained grievous injuries.

10. Ram Prasad, who was driving the motor cycle and Besahu Ram Gond, who was sitting as passenger in the bus, had sustained grievous injuries and both of them succumbed to those injuries. Their inquest reports (Ex. P-38 and Ex. P-4 respectively) were prepared by R.B. Jagte (PW-19) and their post mortem was conducted by Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW- 15), vide aforesaid reports, he has opined that cause of death of both the deceased was ‘coma’ because of heart and respiratory failure and nature of their death was ‘accidental’, it has also been proved by him in his deposition. Thus, it is duly proved that Ram Prasad, who was driving motor cycle, which collided with bus and passenger namely; Besahu Ram Gond, who was sitting in the bus, had died because of injuries sustained by them in aforesaid accident.

11. Ludhan Ram (PW-1), Brajesh Patel (PW-2), Ramnarayan (PW-6) and Premsay (PW-7) have stated in their deposition that, at the time of accident, respondent was driving the bus, which has not been elicited in their cross-examination. Brajesh Patel (PW-2) and Premsay (PW-7) have stated in their deposition that at the time of accident, bus was driven in speed, but they have not stated that what was approximate speed of the bus. Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 (repeat)] has stated in his deposition that the bus was swaying while driving by driver, but this fact does not get 6 support from any other witnesses, rather, Sattar Ram (PW-9) has stated that since respondent had turned the bus all of a sudden, it overturned, but this fact also does not get support from any other witnesses, rather, Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 (repeat number)] and Sattar Ram (PW-9) have stated contradictory reasons for getting the bus overturned. Yogendra Singh (PW-3), Ramnarayan (PW-6), Dileshwar (PW-8) and Suresh Kumar (PW-10) have controverted the fact by saying in their deposition that the bus was driven by driver in normal speed. Thus, it appears that whether the bus was in over speed or not is also contradictory from deposition of prosecution’s witnesses. None of them have specifically stated the fact that what was the approximate speed of the bus. Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 (repeat number)] has admitted suggestion made by learned defence counsel that since there was turning and slope on the road at the place of incident, therefore, the bus being driven by the driver in slow speed. He has further admitted that all of a sudden, herd of buffaloes came in front of bus. Though this fact also does not get support from deposition of other witnesses, but no specific reason has been proved by the prosecution that, what was the reason of said accident. Reason shown by them is itself contradictory.

12. Ex. P-6 is spot map prepared by the police, which also supports the fact that at the place of incident, there was sharp turning on the road and witnesses have also stated that there was slope on the road. Undisputedly, motor cycle driven by its driver Ram Prasad collided with the bus, but none of the witnesses has stated in his / her deposition that motor cycle was going in front of bus or coming opposite from the bus, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that all of a sudden motor cycle came in front of alleged bus, hence, it collided with bus. Soni Ram Nagendra [PW-8 7 (repeat number)] has also admitted that herd of buffaloes came in front of bus suddenly, as such, respondent applied break to prevent accident, but because of slope and sharp turning on the road at the place of accident, he could not avoid the accident.

13. On due consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution and discussion made herein-above, it is found that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact that the accident occurred because of rash or negligent driving of the bus by respondent / accused, therefore, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent / accused of the alleged offences, hence, the same is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the Acquittal Appeal is dismissed.

14. Let copy of this judgment along with record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO 10:34:03 +0530