STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. VIJAY SARTHI
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA SINGH KAPOOR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Chhattisgarh judgment dated 2020-11-05. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. VIJAY SARTHI. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1320 of 2020 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ----Applicant Versus 1. Vijay Sarthi S/o Kriparam Sarthi Aged About 23 Years R/o Motisagar Para, Korba, Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Tara Bai W/o Kripa Ram Sarthi Aged About 50 Years R/o Motisagar Para, Korba, Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Shri K. K. Singh, Govt. Advocate D. B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava & Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Order on Board 05/11/2020 Heard. 1. There is an application for grant of leave to appeal (CRMP) along with application for condonation of delay. 2.
Even if delay is condoned, we find that there is no merit in the application and present is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal for obvious reason that acquittal of the accused is based on consideration that the victim Soni Sharma (PW3) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the injury was sustained by her on account of fall from the auto-rickshaw. 3. Though learned counsel for the State vociferously argued that there are -2-many other eyewitnesses who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, when the victim herself is not supporting the prosecution case and giving an entirely different story in her evidence, what has been urged by learned State counsel could only be another possible view. The scope of interference against judgment of acquittal, as limited by plethora of decisions of Supreme Court and this Court, does not permit us to grant leave in this case. 4. In the result, all the applications are rejected.
Sd/- Sd/--/----- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor) 5. Judge Judge Praveen
Source: High Court of Chhattisgarh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.