State Of Chhattisgarh v. Chandan Nishad

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2399 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

Chandan Nishad, S/o Ramlochan Nishad, aged about 23 years, R/o Ajamgarh, Police Station- Pawai, District-Ajamgarh (Uttar Pradesh) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For State/ Petitioner :

Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent :

None.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07/01/2019 1.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2018, application for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

2.

For the reasons mentioned in the application and as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, the delay of 34 days in filing the petition is condoned.

3.

Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4.

This petition is preferred against judgment dated 23/06/2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, DistrictDhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 352/2016, wherein the said court acquitted the respondent for commission of offence under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC, 1860.

5.

In the present case, injured is Pushpanjali Sahu. Bhisham Kumar Sahu (PW-1) deposed that one Scorpio vehicle dashed Pushpanjali Sahu. He is unable to say that as to who was really driving the vehicle at the time of incident. Mithlesh (PW2) deposed in his examination-in-chief that the Scorpio vehicle was driven by the respondent, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that after hearing sound of the vehicle, he came out of his house and when he came out of his house, vehicle and driver was not present there. He further deposed that driver of the vehicle flee away after the incident and he had no occasion to see as to who was really driving the vehicle. Other witnesses are hearsay witness to whom the incident was informed after the accident.

6.

Prafull Sancheti (PW-8) deposed that the vehicle was handed over to the respondent, but he is unable to state that as to what was really happened at the time of incident and who was at fault for the incident. When this witness was not present at the time of incident, he is not the real witness of the incident, therefore, his statement is also not incriminating piece of evidence against the present respondent.

7.

On overall assessment of the evidence, it appears that the evidence against the present respondent regarding driving the vehicle at the time of incident, is lacking, therefore, charges leveled against the respondent are not established. 8.

The trial court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded finding of acquittal. After going through the

entire record, this Court has no reason to record contrary finding. It is not a case where respondent should be called for hearing again for full consideration of this petition. Accordingly, application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected. 9.

Consequently, the petition stands dismissed at motion stage itself.

Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge Arun