1
2024:CGHC:33303
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 470 of 2023
Smt. Sumitra, W/o Late Tularam, Caste – Rajwar, aged
about 30 years, Occupation – Agriculture & House Work,
R/o village – Badrikashram, Police Station & Tahsil –
Ramanujnagar, District – Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
1. Radheshyam Sahu, S/o Shankhlal Sahu, aged about 40
years, R/o village Madneshwarpur, Police Station & Tahsil
Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.).
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate,
Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Court Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Sanskar Rajput, counsel appears
on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya,
Advocate.
For Res. Nos. 1 : None
For State/Res. No.2 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen Menon, Panel
Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
(Judgment on Board)
30.08.2024
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2024.09.03
17:16:11 +0530
2
1. Heard on I.A.No.01/2024, for condonation of delay in filing
the revision, which is supported by the affidavit of appellant.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned
therein, the same is allowed and delay in filing the revision
is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. The present revision is filed against the judgment dated
24.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11/2018 by the
learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Surajpur (C.G.),
whereby the learned Appellate Court below has dismissed
the appeal filed by the applicant and confirmed the
judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed in Criminal Case
No.903/2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the accused/respondent No.1 has
been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections
279, 337, 304-A of IPC.
5. Prosecution story in brief is that a report was filed by
Ramgopal at police station Ramanuj Nagar to the effect that
on 18.01.2007, the accused/respondent No.1 Radheshyam
Sahu driving his vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.CG-
15-A-0634 in rash and negligent manner met with an
accident near village Kaushalpur and turned turtled, due to
which school children namely Parmeshwar Prasad, Ku.
Geeta, Ku. Sunita, Ku. Pramila, Ku. Zulekha, Ku. Suman,
3
Sanjay and Ashish Kumar sitting in the tractor sustained
injuries and Tularam succumbed to the injuries. On the
basis of the aforesaid report of complainant, a crime was
registered against accused/respondent No.1 Radheshyam
and the case was taken up for investigation and after
thorough investigation, the charge sheet was presented
before the trial court.
6. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/
respondent No.1 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC/
7. Before the learned trial Court below, prosecution has
examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/respondent Nos. 1 was also recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, after
appreciating oral and documentary evidence, by judgment
dated 30.01.2018 acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1
from the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-
A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal
dated 30.01.2018, the Complainant/applicant herein filed an
appeal before the Court of Sessions and the learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 24.12.2022,
dismissed the appeal of appellant. Hence, this revision by
the Complainant/applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by both the Courts
4
are bad, illegal, perverse and contrary to law and evidence
available on record. The learned trial Court and the
appellate Court committed serious error of law and fact by
acquitting the accused persons inspite of the fact that
ingredients of offence under Section 304 (A), 279 and 337
of IPC were proved by the prosecution by leading cogent
and reliable evidence. Learned counsel further submits that
the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of
prosecution witnesses in its true perspective and the
learned Appellate Court did not consider all grounds of
appeal and passed the impugned judgment which is liable
to be set aside. It has been also argued that Sunil Kumar
Tiwari (PW/9) as well as other prosecution witnesses have
categorically able to proved that the accused/respondent
No.1 had committed the offence of rash and negligence
driving, as such, the impugned judgment passed by both the
Courts are liable to be set aside and accused/respondent
No.1 is liable to be convicted.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the
argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
orders of both the Courts and record of the learned trial
Court.
11. Sunil Kumar Tiwari (PW/9) though has stated against
5
respondent No.1 but the learned trial Court while arriving at
the conclusion of acquittal minutely appreciated the cross-
examination of this witness and also appreciated the
statements of other prosecution witnesses and recorded the
finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts against the
accused/respondent No.1. The learned Appellate Court has
also considered all grounds of appeal of petitioner and also
appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses and
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that it has not
found any infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the
learned trial Court.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated
12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in
Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in
para 36 as under:-
36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on
the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as
guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values
of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of
justice. The principles which come into play while
deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:-
“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element
of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral
and documentary;
6
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence
may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in
itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence,
finds that two views are possible, the one in
favour of the accused shall ordinarily be
followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally
plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary
view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse
the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of
evidence, it must specifically address all the
reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to
conviction, the appellate Court must
demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of
law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”
13. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition of Mallappa (supra)
in the present case as well and looking to the statement of
witnesses and finding recorded by the learned Courts
below, this Court is also of the view that the findings
recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. That apart,
it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in
exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite
limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is
7
any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with
arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not.
In the present case, no such circumstance is there
warranting interference by this Court.
14. Accordingly, the criminal revision preferred by the applicant
is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is liable
to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
pekde