State Of Chhattisgarh v. Tarkeshwar Sharma

^COURT FEE3 E^^PTFn BYNOTiRctfT'!^?0:'I;^i^ B/C.G./Q5 'AS 'KPf::!::;^c^^'^£!?I^9(^

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR

CR.MJ'. NQ.'PJ*? /2013 The State of Chhattisgarh Through -District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) APPELLANT:

VERSUS

Tarkeshwar Sharma, S/o.- Vijay Sharma, Aged about - 24 years R/o.- Village Umariya P.S. - Bemetara, District - Durg (C.G.) Present Address - Katora Talab behind P.W.D. Colony Civil Lines, Raipur RESPONDENT:

-339/2011 - Golbazar - Raipur^ R.^° Crime No.

Police Station District S4**'

....•-"'"'

1.5s ^res6 AW^ ,en^AW Sht' :......^-^'

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973.

(•I

.'';

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench :

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sani Koshy -.,,-E^'

,»-^ <-y Cr. M. P. No. 719 of2013 The State of Chhattisgarh Petitioner

VERSUS

Tarkeshwar Sharma Resnondent Shri Arun Singh, G.A. for the State/petitioner. None for the respondent.

O R D E R

(04.02.2014) By way of the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 684/2012.

2.

Facts as per the prosecution case are that on 22.12.2011 at about 10 p.m. while respondent Tarkeshwar Sharma driving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. C.G. 02 1082 rashly and negligently, at Sastri Chowk, Raipur, met with an accident by dashing against victim Alamdar (PW-1) who was riding on his bicycle.

As a result of the accident, the victim sustained injuries on his spine as well as other parts of his body for which he was hospitalized.

Thereafter, a case was registered against the respondent under sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 3.

However, during pendency of the case before the trial Court, the respondent as well as the victim entered into a S ^^ S S^^ ^:^^

,y/ .- s^~ comproniise and accordingly the offences iinder sections 337 and 338 were compounded with the permission of fhe Court. Since offence under section IPC was not compoundable, proceeding for the said ofFence continued before the trial Court. 4.

While considering the case, fhe trial Court reached to the conclusion that from the evidences that have come on record and ^^ the evidence ofvictim Alamdar (PW-1) it is not established that on 22.12.2011 the respondent was driving his Tata Sumo rashly and negligently and therefore benefit of doubt must go in favour of the respondent.

Accordingly, the Court below vide its judgment dated 24.05.2013 acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 279 of IPC.

5.

It is fhis judgment dated 24.5.2013 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 684/2012 which the State intends to assail in the instant Cr.M.P.

6.

On due consideration of the evidence of the victim Alamdar .

(PW-1) it is evidently clear that in his entire evidence before the Court below PW-1 has not stated anything in respect of the respondent having driven the Tata Sumo rashly and negligently for atta-acti.g the provisions of Section 279 of IPC and in the absence of such act of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent, the provisions of 279 IPC cannot be attracted. It is for this reason the trial Court reached to fhe conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the fact that the respondent was driving the Tata Suino rashly and negligently resulting the accident.

In these circumstances, the appellant is !^ .-.^^-F^-

entitled to get the benefit of doubt.

7.

For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merits in the instant Cr.M.P. and in the submissions of the State counsel. The Cr.M.P. is accordingly rejected.

p.SamKosliy Judge v