[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mustafa Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.08.26
17:53:10
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 757 of 2012
• Mustafa Khan, S/o Jhuri Khan, aged about 50 Years, R/o Tikrapara ,distt.
Bilaspur C.G.
...Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Collector, District Bastar, C.G.,
Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
26.08.2025
1.
The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.02.2012
passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G., in
Criminal Appeal No.41/2011, whereby the learned Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 19.10.2010
passed in Criminal Case No.153/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G, convicting the applicant under
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC‘) and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default thereof, to undergo additional imprisonment for one month.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2008, at about 6:45
a.m., PW-1 Jagendra Korram lodged a merg intimation (Ex. P-1) stating
2
therein that, on the same day, his uncle Sukhram (hereinafter referred to
as “the deceased”), after purchasing a buffalo, was returning to his village
Pamela. However, on the way, the driver of a bus namely Dubey Travels,
while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the
injuries. On the basis of the merg intimation (Ex. P-1), an FIR (Ex. P-2)
was registered against the driver of the bus of Dubey Travels.
3. During the course of investigation, a spot map was prepared vide
Ex. P-8 and vide Ex. P-4, one Rajdhani Bus bearing registration No.
CG04/E1142, white in colour with green and blue markings at certain
places along with its documents, was seized from the possession the
applicant at Dandewada. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses
were recorded, and the accused/applicant was arrested vide Ex. P-5.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the
applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur,
C.G. The accused / applicant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
5. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record,
the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted and
sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment.
Hence, this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as well
as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available
on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for
the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly, in the evidence of PW-3 Kuhrami Pando and
PW-4 Mangli. He also submits that in the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and
3
FIR (Ex.P-2), it is specifically mentioned that the accident occurred due to
the bus driven by driver of Dubey Travels, whereas, as per seizure memo
(Ex.P-4), Rajdhani Bus was seized, which creates serious doubt and
renders the prosecution story doubtful. He also submits that there is no
cogent and clinching evidence on record to suggest that applicant is the
author of the crime in question. On these premises, it is prayed by
counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled
against him.
7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the
impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as
Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and
there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this
Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
9. PW-3 Kuhrami Pando, who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident,
has stated that on the date of incident, at about 6:00 am, she was
collecting Mahua near her house situated by the roadside and at that
time, she saw a bus coming from Jagdalpur and hitting the deceased,
who was walking on the side of the road, as a result of which, deceased
sustained grievous injuries over his body and died. She further submits
that the bus involved in the accident was described as white colour with
some black patches. However, as per the seizure memo (Ex. P-4), a bus
of Rajdhani Travels, white in colour with green and blue markings at
certain places, was seized from the possession of the applicant at
Dandewada. She also submits that PW-4 Mangli had also witnessed the
4
incident and further she categorically stated that she saw the
accused/applicant driving the bus. However, on the contrary, PW-4
Mangli has stated that on the date of incident, she was collecting Mahua
in front of her house and after hearing the loud sound, she went to the
spot and saw the deceased dashed by a bus and succumbed to the
injuries. She has further stated that the bus was coming from Jagdalpur
and was being driven at a high speed, but she did not notice the driver
who was driving the bus. Furthermore, PW-1 Gajendra Korram and PW-2
Kuhrami Kosho have stated that they did not see the incident.
That apart, PW-8 Tulsi Das Sahu, Investigating Officer, has stated
that on 17.03.2008, PW-1 Gajendra Korram appeared at the police
station and lodged a report against the driver of a bus belonging to
Dubey Travels stating that on the main road in front of Badekilepal BRO
camp, the driver of bus, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent
manner and at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result of which,
deceased was thrown aside and died on the spot. In cross-examination,
he admitted that Dubey Travels and Rajdhani Travels are different
entities, and he did not take any steps to identify or verify the two buses,
namely Dubey Travels and Rajdhani Travels.
10. Thus, perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are
material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-3 Kuhrami Pando, PW-4
Mangli and PW-8 Tulsiram Sahu, I.O. and their evidence does not
corroborate with each other and the contents of merg intimation (Ex.P-1),
FIR (Ex.P-2) and seizure memo with respect to alleged accident. That
apart, in the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2), it is specifically
mentioned that the accident occurred due to the bus driven by driver of
5
Dubey Travels, but as per seizure memo (Ex.P-4), Rajdhani Bus was
seized, which renders the entire prosecution story doubtful. Moreover,
although PW-3 Kuhrami Pando has stated that she has seen the applicant
causing the accident, but a perusal of the spot map (Ex. P-8) shows that
she was at a distance of about 100 steps from the place of occurrence and
in that view of the matter, it is doubtful as to how this witness could have
clearly identified the accused/applicant from such a distance. Besides
above, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the
complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. Thus, I am of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal
for the aforesaid offence on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial
Court as well as Appellate Court were unjustified in convicting and
sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court
of JMFC dated 19.10.2010 and that of Appellate Court dated 24.02.2012
are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of
the charge under Section 304-A IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt.
12. It is reported that the applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds
are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
13. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Akhilesh
[ad_2]
Source link