Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imran Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33642
1 CRR-2009-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2009 of 2025
IMRAN KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sandesh Dixit - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 20.08.2019 passed by First Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.98/2018 arising out of
judgment dated 24.02.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jabalpur in RCT No.757/2015 whereby the applicant has been convicted
under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with
fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case was that on 28.05.2015 at 10:30 am
in Village Katangi on the public road, the deceased Sehzad Mansoori aged
about 8 years was standing and the applicant was driving his Mahindra Jeep
bearing registration No. MP-20-H-8940 rashly and negligently, hit the
deceased, as a result, he died during treatment. Autopsy was conducted, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33642
2 CRR-2009-2025
vehicle was recovered, applicant was arrested and as discussed above, trial
Court and Appellate Court have convicted and sentenced the applicant,
hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Salim (PW-1)
who has lodged the FIR, in his cross-examination, has clearly admitted that
he had not seen how the applicant was driving the vehicle and has admitted
that on the information provided by other persons, he lodged the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that Abdul
Waheed (PW-3) in his statement has not mentioned the name of the driver
and the number of vehicle by which the deceased suffered the injuries. He
has improved his statement and supported that the applicant was driving his
vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased.
5. Mohd. Niyaz (PW-4) in his statement that was recorded by the
Police Officer during the merg inquiry, has not mentioned the name of the
driver and number of vehicle and when after a month, his further statement
was recorded, he disclosed the name of the applicant and the number of
vehicle, hence, he cannot be believed.
6. In the same way, Mohd. Aabid (PW-5) in his Ex.D/3 statement has
not stated regarding the incident, thus, the evidence on which the trial Court
as well as Appellate Court has relied to convict the applicant is not
trustworthy, hence the applicant be acquitted.
7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the trial Court and
Appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence, hence, no case for
interference is made out.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33642
3 CRR-2009-2025
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. As per the statement of witness Salim (PW-1), who has lodged the
FIR (Ex.P/1) on 28.05.2015 within 20 minutes of the incident, has clearly
named the applicant and number of vehicle i.e. MP-20-H-8940 and in his
Court statement, he has submitted that on 28.05.2015 at 10:30 am in Village
Katangi, ward No.7, deceased Sehzad Mansoori was standing under the
Neem tree, the applicant Imran Khan was driving his vehicle towards
Katangi Bus-stand, came and dashed the deceased and he was stuck in the
wheel. Another persons namely Babbu and Waheed Master reached on the
spot and took out the deceased from the vehicle. Deceased was sent by 108
Ambulance to the Hospital and he lodged the FIR.
10. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that at the time
of incident, he was in his house, when he heard the noise of accident, he
came out from his house and the applicant ran away. He has also admitted
that he had not seen who was driving the vehicle and in which manner.
11. The same fact has been supported by Abdul Waheed (PW-3) and
as per Ex.D/2 that was recorded on 02.06.2015 except the name of the driver
and vehicle number, the rest of the incident has been supported by this
witness, hence, there is no contradiction except the fact that the vehicle of
the applicant was involved or not.
12. Mohd. Niyaz (PW-4) has supported that the deceased was standing
near road side under the Neem tree and the applicant Imran Khan was driving
the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased and as a result
deceased suffered the injuries. Deceased was brought for treatment to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33642
4 CRR-2009-2025
Katangi Hospital and from there, he was referred to Metro Hospital where he
died during the treatment.
13. This witness has further stated that he told the vehicle No.MP-20-
H-8940 to the police who caused the death.
14. Same fact has been supported by Mohd. Aabid (PW-5), in the
cross-examination of this witness, the contradiction was brought from his
case diary statement (Ex.P/3) but P/3 is not annexed with the record of the
trial Court.
15. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, it has been brought
that the applicant is the neighbourer of these witnesses and the deceased. No
fact has been brought on record that the applicant has been falsely implicated
in the case due to any enmity or ill-will. Thus, certain slight improvement
and contradictions, the prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the fact
of incident by vehicle No.MP-20-H-8940 that was being driven by the
applicant.
16. It is not the case of the defence that the applicant was driving the
vehicle with care and caution but the deceased all of a sudden came before
the vehicle or accidentally collided with the vehicle of the applicant.
Whereas, in this case, FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged within 20 minutes and in
which vehicle MP-20-H-8940 and the name of the driver Imran has been
mentioned.
17. Injuries suffered by the deceased has proved by Dr. Satish Bhaya
(PW-2). There were multiple injuries and abrasions were found in the skin
and muscles and the deceased died due to these multiple injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33642
5 CRR-2009-2025
18. ASI, Meenu Ram Markam (PW-8) has recovered and seized the
vehicle from the possession of the applicant on 05.06.2015 and as per
witness Mohd. Salim Mistri (PW-7) who made the mechanical examination
of the vehicle, no mechanical failure was found. The incident occurred on the
side of the road involving the pavement, hence, on minor contradictions and
omissions, no case for interference is made out, hence, the conviction of the
applicant, is affirmed.
19. On the point of sentence, as the trial Court has sentenced him for
one year R.I., looking to the facts and circumstances, that cannot said to be
disproportionate to the offence.
20. Accordingly, this revision petition, sans merit, is dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
