The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Premlal

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission.

The State has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 4/1/2012 passed by the learned JMFC Balaghat in Criminal Case No. 507/07 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of Section 304A of IPC.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that on 18.5.2007 Sunil (PW-1) had lodged an FIR at Police Station Lanji District Balaghat that the respondent Premlal drove the motorcycle with an excessive speed and dashed with Tulsiram, elder brother of the complainant. The victim Tulsiram was taken to the hospital and thereafter he expired. After considering the prosecution evidence the learned JMFC acquitted the respondent.

After considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the State, it appears that initially the FIR was lodged by Sunil (PW-1), who was an eye-witness in the case, but in his statement before the trial Court he has stated that he was informed by one Rikhiram (PW-3) and thereafter he went to the spot and saw that his brother Tulsiram lying on the road, and thereafter he took his brother to the police station. Under such circumstances, Sunil could not see the driver or motorcycle. Rikhiram (PW-3) has also turned partly hostile, though he was not declared hostile. Initially he told that the motorcycle was driven by Premlal, but in the cross examination he has accepted that he was intimated afterwards that the motorcycle was of Guddu and the same was driven by Premlal. However, he has accepted that the incident took place at about 8:30 PM in the night and the motorcycle was dashed to the victim Tulsiram from the back side. Under such circumstances, the identification done by the witness Rikhiram cannot be accepted. Similarly, Chhabilal (PW-2) was examined as an eye-witness. He has stated that when the accused Premlal dashed the motorcycle to the victim Tulsiram from the backside, then after hearing noise of the dash, they went to the spot and they tried to administer some water to the victim Tulsiram. However, he could not drink. He has accepted that the incident took place at 8:30 PM in the night and there was dark at the spot and no road lamp was illuminated on that road. He could tell about the accused that he identified the accused. It would be apparent that the witnesses Rikhiram and Chhabilal could not identify the person, who driving the motorcycle at the time of incident. It appears that after the incident the driver took the motorcycle immediately from the spot and therefore none of them could see the registration number of the motorcycle and even registration number of the motorcycle was not mentioned in the FIR. Under such circumstances, the learned JMFC has rightly found that it was not established beyond doubt that the respondent was driving the motorcycle at the time of incident. Therefore the respondent could not be convicted for the offence u/s 304A of IPC. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC Balaghat. There is no basis by which the present criminal appeal may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.