Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 193 (MP)

Natthu v. State of M. P.

2015-02-13

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. This revision petition under section 397/401 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against acquittal of the respondent No.2-Om Prakash @ Ram Prakash of the offence under sections 297, 337, 338, 304A of IPC from the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashoknagar, district Guna (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.96/2002, vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2007. 3. As per prosecution case, on 21.2.2002, at around 3 a.m., early in the morning, in between the roads of Pipariya and Karaiya Rai, at Lokmarg, due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver/respondent No.1-Omprakash, the offending tractor bearing registration No.MP 08 F 6784 became imbalanced and turned turtle, resulting Asharam, Kachhi and Seetaram travelling in said the tractor injured while one Pappu Akhai died. The FIR was lodged and Crime No.23/2002 was registered for commission of offence punishable under sections 279,337 and 304A of IPC against the driver/respondent No.1-Omprakash and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court. 4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses, namely, complainant Chhotelal (PW1), Dr. G.D.Arya (PW2), Kunnu (PW3), Seetaram (PW4), Asharam (PW5), Jagannath Singh (PW6), Kamal Kishore Sharma, Head Constable, (PW7), Bharosa (PW8), Mohar Siongh (PW9), the Investigating Officer Sanjeev Tiwari (PW10), Omkar (PW11), Dr. Deepti Surana, Medical Officer (PW12), Dr. Rajendra Kumar Goyal (PW13), Raju @ Rajendra Singh (PW14) and lastly Dr. R.K. Jain (PW15). 5. After critical evaluation of the evidence on record the learned trial Court comes to hold that the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to establish that the act of the respondent No.2-Omprakash was negligent and therefore for want of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence, he was acquitted of the alleged offences. On going through the reasoning assigned in the judgment of acquittal, this Court also does not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the trial Court in arriving at such conclusion. 6. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the revisional powers can be exercised only if there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice in the sense that the findings are against evidence and facts, but where the acquittal is recorded after due appreciation of the evidence on record, interference by the revisional Court normally is not warranted. 7. 6. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the revisional powers can be exercised only if there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice in the sense that the findings are against evidence and facts, but where the acquittal is recorded after due appreciation of the evidence on record, interference by the revisional Court normally is not warranted. 7. Testing the reasonings of acquittal on the touchstone of the said settled principles of law, the approach of the trial Court seems to be reasonable, plausible and possible from the evidence recorded. The judgment assailed in the revision therefore does not call for any interference. 8. Resultantly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed for want of substance. 9. The record of the case be sent back with a copy of this order to the Court below. R.K. Soni for petitioner; Pramod Pachori, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.