Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Shamim Khan on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7609
1 CRA-979-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 979 of 2006
STATE OF M.P.
Versus
SHAMIM KHAN
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State/Appellant.
Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 26.6.2006
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in
criminal case No.962/2002 by which respondent/accused was tried for
offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
2. As per prosecution story on 24.11.1994 at about 10:15 AM,
respondent/accused was driving the jeep bearing registration No.MP04 F
0978 with high speed and rashly and when he reached near the complainant's
house, he hit her younger daughter Sangeeta, due to which Sangeeta
sustained fatal injury and died on the spot. Complainant Ramesh lodged FIR
at Police Station Ganj basoda. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before trial Court. Trial Court has framed charges under Section 304-A of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7609
2 CRA-979-2006
IPC. Respondent/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence and
thereafter prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Defense did
not examine any witness. After completion of trial and scrutinizing the
evidence available on record, trial Court has acquitted respondent/accused
from charges under Section 304 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid,
appellant preferred this appeal.
4. After obtaining leave from this Court under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.,
learned counsel for appellant contended that trial Court has acquitted
respondent on the ground that it is not proved that respondent has driven the
vehicle rashly and negligently but from evidence of eye witness Purushottam
(PW-7), offence is proved against the respondent. Statement of Purushottam
is well supported by other witness and medical evidence as well as FIR
available on record. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on
record in a proper manner. Thus, trial Court has committed error and has
acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, he prays that impugned judgment
be set aside and respondent be convicted for the offence under Section 304
of IPC.
5. Learned counsel for respondent opposes the prayer and prays for its
rejection by supporting that impugned judgment passed by trial Court.
6. I have heard both the parties and perused the entire record with due
care.
7. From perusal of FIR, it appears that it has been lodged against
respondent on the ground that he has driven the vehicle rashly and
negligently and hit deceased Sangeeta from front side but alleged eye-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7609
3 CRA-979-2006
witness Purushottam deposed that when respondent was turning the vehicle,
at the time of turning rear tyre of vehicle, it rolled over the body of the
deceased Sangeeta. Thereafter, she has been died. Therefore, there is material
contradictions in the statement of eye witness Purushottam with FIR (exhibit
P-1). Ramesh (PW-1) who has lodged the FIR, turned hostile and
categorically stated that at the time of incident, he was not present on the
spot and he has mentioned the name of Shamim in the report at the instance
of his mother in law Moonga Bai and Moonga Bai has been died. He did not
know about the incident. Radhaballabh (PW-2) Vijay (PW-3), Munna (PW-
4), Damodar (PW-5), Jitendra (PW-8) and Ramsakhi (PW-10) deposed in
their statement that they did not know who was driving the offending vehicle
at the time of incident and they did not see the incident. Nand kishore (PW-
9) has also deposed that he was not present on the spot and he only heard that
one girl has been died in incident caused by Jeep of respondent but he did not
know anything about the incident. Karodimal (PW-12) also deposed that at
the time of incident, accused was driving the jeep and girl was hit by the
front tyre of vehicle. Therefore, about the incident, there is material
contradictions and omissions in the statement of Purushottam (PW-7),
Jitendra (PW-8) and Karodimal (PW-12). Therefore, statements were not
supported by FIR.
8. On the basis of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that material contradictions and omissions in the statement of Purushottam
(PW-7), Jitendra (PW-8) and Karodimal (PW-12). There statement were not
supported by FIR. Ramesh who has lodged the FIR has not supported the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7609
4 CRA-979-2006
version of FIR (exhibit P-1). Therefore, in the absence of material evidence
available on record, prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of
incident respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, due to
which deceased died.
9. It is settled position of law that High Court would not ordinarily
interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of trial Court is
vitiated by some manifest illegality. Merely because two views are possible,
the High Court would not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial
Court as well as lower appellate Court as held in the decision of State of
M.P. Vs. Ramcharan and others, 1985 MPLJ 714.
10. Taking this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the
judgment of acquittal dated 26.6.2006 passed by JMFC, Ganj basoda,
District Vidisha. The appeal preferred by the State is accordingly dismissed.
The respondent is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
