Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
1. Heard on IA No.01/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the petition.
2. On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay of 62 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC.
4. This petition is preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.7.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur Distt Surguja (CG)
in Criminal Case No.4835/2012 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondent for the charge under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code for
driving vehicle bearing registration No.CG 15A 9368 rashly and negligently and causing death of one Ku. Sayal.
5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Jagat Ram (PW-1) deposed that he reached to the spot only
after the incident. Tejbhan Singh (PW-2) also deposed before the trial Court that he has not seen the incident, therefore, unable to say who was
driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. Dhanpati (PW-3) deposed in examination-in-chief that driver of the vehicle fled away from the spot
after the incident. This witness has been subjected to leading questions and in answer to a leading question he deposed that the respondent was driving
the vehicle, but in his cross-examination he deposed that he did not see the incident and did not know the name of the person who was driving the
vehicle at the time of the incident. Heeralal (PW-4) has not supported the version of the prosecution. Durga Bai (PW-6) deposed that the driver was
driving the vehicle slowly. Looking to the entire evidence, the trial Court opined that no one has witnessed the incident and as there is nothing on
record as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, it is not established that the respondent was driving the vehicle at the time of the
incident. View taken by the trial Court is one of the plausible view which is based on relevant material placed on record. It is not based on irrelevant
and extraneous materials. It is not a case where the respondent should be called for full consideration of the matter.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the CrMP stands dismissed.
