Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Jeevanlal Sahu 4 Crmp/2338/2018 State ... on 8 January, 2019
Author: Ram Prasanna Sharma
Bench: Ram Prasanna Sharma
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Misc. Petition No.2319 of 2018
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Telibandha,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Jeevanlal Sahu S/o Sevakram Sahu R/o- Village Tuta, Police
Station Abhanpur, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner/State : Shri Raghavendra Verma, Govt.
Advocate
For the respondent : None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 08.01.2019.
1. Heard on IA No.01/18 for condonation of delay in filing the petition.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. reported in 1996 3 SCC 132, the delay of 31 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 has been preferred against judgment of acquittal dated 05.5.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) in Criminal Case No.451/2004 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondent for the charges under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2
5. As per the version of the prosecution, the respondent along with his colleagues Heeralal Dhruw and Bheema Manikpuri were doing house construction on contract basis situated at village Jora and when the wood centering was taking out, the same fell and one labour Dhanara was crushed under the said centering and he died.
6. To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses. Heeralal Baghel (PW-1), Praveen Kumar Baghel (PW-2) and Mahesh Mahilang (PW-3) have not supported the version of the prosecution. They did not state that the deceased died due to fall of wood centering. There is no connecting piece of evidence regarding negligence on the part of the present respondent.
7. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence, this Court has no reason to substitute a contrary finding. It is not a case where the respondent should be called for full consideration of the petition.
8. Accordingly, the application foqr leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the CrMP stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE Bini