Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kailashchandra on 9 February, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29108 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION DEPALPUR TEHSIL DEPALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH BAIS, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
KAILASHCHANDRA S/O JAGANNATH JAT, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVERY RESHAM KENDRA KHAJURIYA
THANA HATOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANT
(NONE APPEARED FOR THE NON-APPLICANT)
This application coming on for admission this day, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
This is an application for leave to appeal filed under
Section 378(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, against the
order dated 27.01.2022 passed by JMFC, Depalpur, District-
Indore in RCT Case No.100642/2015, whereby the non-
applicant/accused has been acquitted under Section 304-A of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
As per the prosecution case, on the report of Chowkidar -
Dharmendra, an FIR was registered that the bus bearing
registration No.MP13P-0952 was being driven rashly and
negligently dashed a Maruti Suzuki Car bearing registration
No.MP09C-6677 and the car was badly damaged. It was stated
that three persons were sitting in the Car and they died on the
spot itself. On the said report, Crime No.199/2015 was
registered for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Thereafter the investigation was carried out and the
witnesses have been examined before the trial Court who have
not supported the prosecution case. The complainant Chowkidar
- Dharmendra (PW/1) turned hostile and has stated that he has
not seen the accident and Kalyan Singh (PW/3) the eye-witness
has also stated the same version i.e. he has not seen the incident
and he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution
case. He states that he reached the sport when the accident has
already taken place. Dr. Chandrakala Pancholi (PW/2) who has
conducted the autopsy of the deceased has stated that they died
because of the injuries sustained by them in the accident. The
prosecution could not prove that the non-applicant/accused was
driving the alleged vehicle which was involved in the
commission of offence which was driven rashly and negligently
but the trial Court after appreciation of evidence has held that
the prosecution has utterly proved to establish that the vehicle
was being driven by the non-applicant/accused rashly and
negligently and therefore acquitted the non-applicant from the
offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the statements of Dharmendra (PW/1) and Kalyan
Singh (PW/3) who are the eye-witnesses of the said accident
have not supported the prosecution case and both of them have
stated that they had not seen the incident of rash and negligent
driving of accused/driver and the prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is to note here that in an appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in (2005)
8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views
are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the
findings of acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be
interpreted where the material on record leads to sole
inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused. In the case of T.
Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401, the
Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said
judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High
Court was set aside restoring the judgment of the trial court
acquitting the accused In the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K.
Surenderan, (008) 1 SCC 258, the Apex Court has observed
that in case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not
reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view
may be possibly taken.
The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh
Vs. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of
acquittal by the court of law, the court has to be very cautious in
interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and
substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The
relevant paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment of Mahavir Singh
(supra) quoted as under:-
"11. We have heard the learned counsel on either
side at length and perused the material available
on record. Now it is imperative to look into the
scope of interference by the appellate Court in an
appeal against acquittal and whether the High
Court was justified in convicting the accused
under Section 302, IPC by reversing the order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
12.In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
competent Court after a full-fledged trial, and
once the Trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits
the accused, then the reaffirmation of his
innocence places more burden on the appellate
Court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it
is settled law that there are no fetters on the
power of the appellate Court to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on
facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is
passed. But the court has to be very cautious in
interfering with an appeal unless there are
compelling and substantial grounds to interfere
with the order of acquittal. The appellate Court
while passing an order has to give clear
reasoning for such a conclusion."
In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial
Court and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find
any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and there are
no compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the
order of acquittal. Hence, the leave to appeal filed by the
applicant/State is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
Arun/- JUDGE
Digitally signed by
ARUN NAIR
Date: 2023.02.09
18:15:06 +05'30'
