[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babu Lal on 23 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6834
1 MCRC-5912-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5912 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BABU LAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aatmaram Ben - Dy. Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 03.12.2015 passed
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul in Criminal Case No.153/2010
whereby learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused (respondents herein)
from the charges under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 158/177 of the
Motor Vehicle Act. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, this petition under
Section 378 (III) of CrPC for grant of leave to appeal has been filed.
2 . Brief facts giving rise to present petition are that as per the
prosecution case, complainant Mahesh Uprale lodged a report on 14.12.2009
at Police Station Chopna, District Betul stating that on 10.12.2009 at about
12:30 PM, he along with Preetam, Sonu, and Sattupal was travelling in
pickup vehicle bearing registration No. MP-48-G-0592. The vehicle was
being driven by accused Babulal in a rash and negligent manner, as a result
of which the vehicle overturned near the Chopna-Hirapur turning, causing
injuries to the complainant Mahesh, Preetam, Sonu, and Sattupal.
Subsequently, FIR was registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6834
2 MCRC-5912-2016
3 . It is contended by learned counsel appearing for State that
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is incorrect,
improper, and bad in law. The procedure adopted by learned Trial Court is
contrary to the evidence and material available on record and is perverse. It is
also contended that learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the
evidence on record and has erroneously acquitted the respondent. The
prosecution has proved the commission of the offence beyond reasonable
doubt, and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses fully supports and
corroborates the case of the prosecution. Consequently, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside, and the accused (respondent herein)
deserves to be convicted in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material
available on record.
5 . Perusal of the record reveals that none of the prosecution witnesses
has supported the prosecution story. During cross-examination, despite
several suggestions put to them by learned counsel for the State regarding
the alleged incident, the witnesses categorically denied the same.
6 . Perusal of the impugned order reflects that learned Trial Court has
duly considered all the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned Trial
Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has acquitted the
accused on the ground that the evidence produced by the prosecution is
mutually inconsistent and does not inspire confidence. The Trial Court has
meticulously examined the testimony of the witnesses, the surrounding
circumstances, and the material on record, and no infirmity is discernible in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6834
3 MCRC-5912-2016
the order of acquittal. The evidence on record, as rightly noted by the learned
Trial Court, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused
through credible, consistent, and reliable evidence. In view of the aforesaid,
the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse,
irregular, or contrary to law.
7 . Perusal of the record does not disclose any infirmity warranting
interference. Consequently, present petition seeking grant of leave to appeal,
being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
8 . Let Trial Court record, if available, along with copy of this order be
transmitted to the Court concerned.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
