Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeet Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
1 CRR-2078-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2078 of 2025
SANJEET MEENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shafiqullah and Shri Abdul Waheed Khan - Advocates for the
petitioner.
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
With the consent of counsel for both the parties, the case is heard
finally.
The petitioner herein was convicted of the offence of Section 304-A
IPC by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Berasia, Bhopal, under
the judgment dated 22.07.2023 passed in RCT No.1003/2016. That judgment
was assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Berasia, Bhopal, in
Criminal Appeal No.40/2023, but upholding the conviction under Section
304-A IPC (three counts) and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 500/- (under each count), the appeal was dismissed on
28.04.2025.
2. Facts of the case are that on 08.07.2016 at around 8:15 p.m. near Sunga
Jod, Tomar Dhaba, Police Station, Nazirabad, district Bhopal, a motorcycle
on which three persons, namely Golu Mehar, Kanhaiyalal Mehar and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
2 CRR-2078-2025
Chandan Singh, were riding was hit by a national bus bearing registration
no.M.P.-04-P.A.-0203; bus was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently
by petitioner; it is claimed that all the three riders of motorcycle died on spot.
After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial court which
framed the charges against petitioner and, after the trial, held the petitioner
guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. His appeal too was dismissed on all
aspects under the impugned judgment.
3. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that both the courts
below have committed error in passing the judgment of conviction against
the petitioner in spite of the fact that prosecution had failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubts and none of the prosecution witnesses had
supported its story. It is submitted that the judgments of conviction and
sentence being bad in law are, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly, a
prayer has been made to allow the revision petition and acquit the petitioner.
4. State has opposed this criminal revision claiming that the conviction of
petitioner by the two courts below and the sentence awarded to him under
those judgments are just and legitimate and, therefore, no interference is
warranted by this Court.
5. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and records of both the
courts below have been perused.
6. Admittedly, in a road accident three persons, namely Golu Mehar,
Kanhaiyalal Mehar and Chandan Singh, lost their lives on the accident spot
and according to prosecution the motorcycle on which they were riding was
hit by the offending bus which was being driven by the petitioner rashly and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
3 CRR-2078-2025
negligently. The documents submitted on behalf of prosecution reveal that
the accident occurred on 08.06.2016 at around 8:15 p.m. and information
about it was given to the police on the same night at 9:00 p.m. Dehati Nalishi
(Ex.P-1) and Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P-2) are the relevant documents
regarding this information. In both these documents, the number of
offending vehicle is mentioned very explicitly but the name of driver is not
disclosed in any one of them. Even the FIR (Ex.P-4), which was lodged on
the next day at 15:07 p.m., reveals that the name of driver of offending bus
was still unknown.
7. From the above facts, it cannot be disputed that three persons died in a
road accident which was caused due to head-on-collusion between their
motorcycle and the offending bus. It is also an undisputed fact that the name
of bus driver was not known even on next day of accident. The prosecution
has relied upon the information (Ex.P-12) given by bus owner, namely
Sharif-ur-rehman, and for this has even examined him as P.W.10. Through
this information it is claimed that Sharif-ur-rehman had apprised the Thana
Prabhari of Police Station, Nazirabad, district Bhopal, that on fateful night
the offending bus was being driven by the petitioner. This information is
indeed very significant to affix responsibility of petitioner in this accident,
but Sharif-ur-rehman (P.W.10) has denied on oath to have given any such
information. He was declared hostile by prosecution but no significant fact
could be extracted from his testimony to connect the petitioner with the
accident under question. From the judgments of both the courts below, it is
reflected that none of them has relied upon the document of Ex.P-12,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
4 CRR-2078-2025
wherein the bus owner had allegedly given information regarding the details
of driver or the testimony of bus owner Sharif-ur-rehman. Thus, this piece of
evidence has failed to prove the guilt of petitioner.
8. As next piece of evidence, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of
Dashrath Goswami (P.W.1) at whose behest the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and
Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P-2) were recorded and he was also instrumental
in the preparation of spot-map (Ex.P-3) also but when examined as P.W.1
this witness has merely confirmed that an accident between a bus and a
motorcycle was seen by him but has failed to testify the registration numbers
of either of the vehicles and has also failed to state any fact about the identity
of bus driver. He has categorically denied to have any acquaintance with the
petitioner. In these facts, Dashrath Goswami, even if considered as an
eyewitness, has not given any valuable corroboration to the prosecution case.
9. It has already been discussed earlier that the factum of accident between
the offending bus and the motorcycle is an undisputed fact here and the
statements of Dashrath Goswami (P.W.1) merely reinforce this fact and
nothing beyond it. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the statements of
alleged eyewitness Dashrath Goswami (P.W.1) do not have any
incriminating value regarding the guilt of petitioner.
10. Gulab Singh Mehar (P.W.2), Dayal Singh Mehar (P.W.3), Dayaram
(P.W.6), Kamta Prasad (P.W.7) and Kailash (P.W.9) are the witnesses who
reached on spot after receiving information about the accident and did not
personally witness it. All of them have claimed that they were informed by
Santosh Mehar about the conditions under which the accident occurred.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
5 CRR-2078-2025
Santosh Mehar has been examined by the prosecution as P.W.5 and he
claims that he was travelling in the offending bus when this accident
occurred. On perusal of record, it is revealed that the police statements of
Santosh Mehar were recorded on 14.07.2016 while the accident had occurred
on 08.07.2016. There is no explanation why an eyewitness, who was very
much present on spot and was giving information about the circumstances of
accident to other witnesses, was examined after such a long delay. According
to Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Singh Verma (P.W.4), Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1)
was prepared by him on the date of accident itself after reaching the place of
occurrence, still it remains unexplained why the police statements of persons
were not recorded on the spot itself, who had allegedly identified the driver,
why the Dehati Nalishi was recorded against an unnamed person and why it
took almost six days to collect information regarding the details of driver. It
is also interesting to note that the police statements of other prosecution
witnesses, who have claimed to have gathered information of accident
through Santosh Mehar, were also recorded from 14.07.2016 onwards.
11. Now this Court has to examine the evidentiary value of statements of
Santosh Mehar (P.W.5). In his examination-in-chief Santosh Mehar claims
that he is acquainted with the petitioner but in para 5 of cross-examination he
admits of having no personal acquaintance with the petitioner. He further
admits that he had no chance to meet petitioner prior to or post the date of
accident. On analyzing this fact wholesomely it appears that he never had a
chance to have any acquaintance with the petitioner and came to know the
name of petitioner only through other sources. If this was the standard of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
6 CRR-2078-2025
acquaintance then it was supposed to be explained on what strength this
witness was giving information to other persons about the name of petitioner
as driver of the offending bus. Further, his testimony does not disclose that
after the accident, he had sufficient time to recognize the face of driver.
12. The entire prosecution evidence is silent whether the driver of
offending bus was still there on spot till the arrival of police or had fled away
much earlier. In fact, there is also serious contradiction in the prosecution
case whether the driver had left the bus on the place of accident until the
police arrived or had taken it away immediately after the accident. In the
light of these material facts, which are either suppressed or have not been
disclosed inadvertently, it is not possible to make any assumption that
witness Santosh Mehar (P.W.5) had sufficient chance to recognize and obtain
the details of driver of the offending bus. If these the details were collected
from a third source then that source has remained undercover. It is also very
significant to note that no test identification parade was held to afford
witness Santosh Mehar (P.W.5) an opportunity to recognize the driver of
offending bus.
13. On the basis of this passing nature of testimony of Santosh Mehar
(P.W.5) and in the absence of any other inculpatory evidence connecting the
petitioner with the alleged crime, the conviction of petitioner for the offence
of Section 304-A (three counts) IPC deserves to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the petitioner is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner is in custody. He
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37826
7 CRR-2078-2025
15. The fine amount deposited by the petitioner, if any, be refunded to him.
16. Let copies of this order along with its records be send to the courts
below for information and necessary compliance. A copy of this order be
also send to the concerned jail authority for ensuring immediate action.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
