Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ajesh Kumar @ Adesh Gupta on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15229
1 MCRC-9416-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9416 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
AJESH KUMAR @ ADESH GUPTA
Appearance:
Shri Ajit Rawat - Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Shri Eshwar Das Vaishy - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.24703/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against the judgement dated 12.02.2015, passed by the JMFC, Sidhi in Criminal Case No.1030/2010, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and Sections 39/192 and 148/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The facts of the case reveals that on 21.05.2010, deceased Boonda Devi went Majholi for purchasing Galla from Kota. After purchasing Galla from Kota, she was returning with Satish Panika on motor cycle along with Soniya Panika, at that time in the evening at about 5 pm, when they reached Gaibta, they met with an accident due rash and negligent driving by respondent by way of tractor bearing Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-02-2026 10:43:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15229 2 MCRC-9416-2015 registration No.MP 53/M-2130. On account of the accident, they fell down. Boonda Devi died on the spot. Thereafter, on the basis of information given by husband of the deceased, Marg No.10/2010 was registered and FIR was registered at Crime No.45/2010 was registered. After due investigation, challan was filed before the competent Court. The trial Court without considering oral and documentary evidence available on record has acquitted the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective and without applying the judicial mind acquitted the accused person/respondent. Hence the finding of the learned trial court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. Learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses who clearly corroborated the prosecution case but the learned Trial Court disbelieving their evidence acquitted the respondents which is a miscarriage of justice. He further submit that the learned trial Court further grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence of PW-2 Soniya Panika and PW-4 Satish Kumar Panika, who were the eyewitnesses of the incident. PW-2 Soniya Panika in her statement categorically stated that incident took place at Gaibta square two years back at 3:00 p.m., She has also stated that deceased Boonda Devi and Satish Kumar were going on the motorcycle at that time, the respondent was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The finding of the learned trial Court was based on oral and documentary evidence but the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the same and passed the impugned Judgment without applying his judicial mind. Hence the Judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned Judgment is bad in law. The findings and conclusion drawn by the Court below is illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, it is prayed that the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-02-2026 10:43:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15229 3 MCRC-9416-2015 petition be allowed.
4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by learned Government Advocate for the State and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
6. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Tota Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 529, wherein it has been held that when there are two views possible then the view shall be adopted in favour of accused. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are correct. After going through the statements recorded by PW-1 Gaya Prasad Panika, PW-2 Soniya, PW- 3 Ramkishan, PW-4 Sanish Kumar and PW-6) Shiv Ram as observed in the impugned judgement, it is found that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to establish the prosecution story. Consequently, there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the incident had happed due to act of respondent.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, this MCRC is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE pn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 25-02-2026 10:43:37