Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ibrahim on 21 December, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 13357 of 2021
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs IBRAHIM)
Indore, Dated : 21-12-2021
Smt. Bharti Lakkad GA for the petitioner /State.
Heard on admission.
Petitioner has filed present application for378(3) of Cr.P.C for
grant of leave to appeal against the order dated 17/12/2020 passed in
Criminal Case no.1171/2014 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manasa,
District-Neemuch by which, the accused/respondent has been
acquitted from the offence punishable under sections 279 and 338 of
IPC and sections 3/181, 39/192 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Facts
of the case in brief are that on 20/10/2014 at about 8:00
pm, the respondent/accused was driving motorcycle bearing
registration no. RJ-09-SR-7508 rashly and negligently and dashed the
motorcycle of the complainant/victum Rajulal on his back side, due to
which, he sustained injuries over his right leg and other parts of the
body. The complainant lodged FTR at police station - Manasa. On the
basis of which, the offence was registered against the
respondent/accused. During investigation, it was found that the
respondent/accused was not having any valide licence, registration
certificate and insurance certificate of the said vehicle at the time of
the incident.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
before the JMFC, Manasa, District - Neemuch. After due appreciation
of evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the
respondent/accused from the aforementioned offences. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the petitioner/State
preferred present petition for leave to appeal before this Court.
Statement of complainant/victim Rajulal (PW-1) perused. He
stated in his statement before the trial Court that at the time of the
incident, he was going towards his house on foot taking bicycle in his
hand. At that time, the accused Ibrahim, by driving his motorcycle
rashly and negligently, dashed behind him, due to which, his leg got
fractured. However, the complainant admits that he did not know the
registration number of the offending vehicle. Mangal (PW-2) has
stated in his statement only incomplete registration number of vehicle
as RJ-09, but it is not complete registration number. The FIR was not
lodged by the complainant or his son Mangal. Name of the
complainant is shown as Rajula in Ex.-P/1. The information was sent
by the concerned doctor. The prosecution proved only x-ray report in
evidence, but MLC report was not produced or proved by the
prosecution before the trial court, therefore, the whole prosecution
case becomes doubtful.
On perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court in para nos
12 to 18 of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against
the impugned judgment. The petitioner has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubts and could not point out any illegality,
impropriety or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which require any
interference by this court. There is no ground available on record for
grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal
In light of the aforesaid discussions, present MCRC has no force
and is hereby dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
Digitally signed by JUDGE
AMOL N MAHANAG
Date: 2021.12.23
17:16:47 +05'30'
