The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Saud Ali
2021 Latest Caselaw 3701 MP

                                                                       1                            MCRC-41548-2020
                                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        MCRC-41548-2020
                                                   (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SAUD ALI AND OTHERS)


                                    Jabalpur, Dated : 29-07-2021
                                          Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                          Shri Anand Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
                                          This application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
                                    Procedure has been filed by the State for grant of leave to file an appeal
                                    against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2020 passed by learned

                                    Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.155/2016, whereby the
                                    respondents have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section

379, 120-B, 420/120-B & 473/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that complainant Shahjeb Khan parked his Mahindra Jeep (Grey Color) bearing No. MP04 CC 7780, Engine No.GG91A40270 and Chassis No.MA1BC2 GGK91A11966 at about 2AM in the night of 10th February, 2015 and in the morning at about 11 AM of 11th Feb., 2015, the jeep was found to be stolen. An FIR has been lodged at police station Nishantpur, Bhopal. On 13th February, 2015, a Mahindra Jeep

(Blue Color) bearing No. MP04 NF0073, Engine No.DD00203 and Chassis No.SJ500DLDD00203 has been recovered from Bada Bag, Near Kabristan, Police Station Shahjanabad, Bhopal in abandoned condition. Respondent No.1 Saud Ali was arrested and Crime No.0/15 under Section 41(1-4) of Cr.P.C read with Section 379 of IPC at police station Tila Jamalpura has been registered on 26th August, 2015. After completion of investigation, a charge- sheet has been filed and after trial, the trial Court acquitted the respondents.

Heard learned Panel Lawyer for the State at length and pursed the record.

Learned trial Court has rightly appreciated that neither there is any evidence that the respondents had left the vehicle at the place of seizure nor there is any evidence that the respondents/accused has changed the number Signature Not Verified SAN plate, chassis number or engine number of the vehicle and there is no implied Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2021.07.31 14:53:02 IST 2 MCRC-41548-2020 or direct evidence against the respondents. Learned trial Court found that suspicion however grave it may be cannot take the place of proof and there is large differences between something that may be proved and something that will be proved. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. After deep discussion and after

analyzing the entire evidence, learned trial Court found that prosecution was not able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents.

Learned Panel Lawyer could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in the application for leave to file appeal is not called for.

The application for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE

sj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2021.07.31 14:53:02 IST