Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramphal Rajak on 18 December, 2015
M.Cr.C. No.9417/2015
18.12.2015
Shri Abhayraj Singh Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer
for the applicant.
Heard on application for leave to appeal.
Respondent having been acquitted of the charges
punishable under Section 279, 338, 304 A IPC levelled on the allegation that due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.MP21/7452 accident was caused to one Sukhni Bai and Achchelal (that Achchelal later succumbed to injuries sustained), by order dated 27.02.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Katni, in Criminal Case No.1554/2012 on a finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the negligent, as the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the complainant and the mechanic who allegedly examined the offending vehicle did not support the prosecution story.
The State though seek leave to appeal on the ground that the findings recording the acquittal are perverse; however, the findings as arrived in paragraph 15 and 16 when examined on the basis of the evidence on record cannot be faulted with.
The trial Court found:
"15- izdj.k esa Qfj;knh d`".kdqekj us vkjksih dks ugha tkuuk crk;k gSA mDr lk{kh us eq[; ijh{k.k dh dafMdk 2 esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd mlus iqfyl okyksa dks xkMh uacj ugha crk;k x;k FkkA vU; lk{kh uRFkwyky v lk 2 us Hkh vkjksihx.k dks ugha tkurs gq, crk;k gS fd mlus ,DlhMsaV gksrs gq, ugha ns[kk gSA tCr'kqnk okgu Ø0 ,e ih 21 7452 dk eSdsfudy okgu dk ijh{k.k djus okys lk{kh Ø0 4 t;yky ds }kjk vius izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 2 esa ;g crk;k gS fd ;g crk;k gS fd okgu ijh{k.k dh fjiksVZ ij mlls dsoy gLrk0 djk, x, FksA D;k fy[kk Fkk mls i<dj ugha lquk;k x;k Fkk okgu ijh{k.k ds nkSjku Fkkus esa [kM+k Fkk mlus mls pykdj ugha ns[kk FkkA foospd , ds iVsy v lk 5 dk izfrijh{k.k ugha gks ldk gSA ftlds dkj.k mldk eq[; ijh{k.k xzkg~; ugha gSA 16- foospd }kjk ?kVukLFky dk oSKkfud ,oa rduhdh vk/kkj ij vUos"k.k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh ?kVukLFky ds Nk;kfp= ,dfd=r fd, x, gSa bl laca/k esa U;k; n`"Vkar vjfoan flag jktiwr fo:) e/;izns'k jkT; vkbZ ,y vkj 2011 ,e ih 2904 esa izfrikfnr fl)kar voyksduh; gSA mDr U;k; n`"Vkar esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHker fn;k x;k gS fd vUos"k.k ,stsaUlh }kjk dksbZ rduhdh ,oa oSKkfud vUos"k.k Vk;j dh cukoV ;k mldh Nk;kizfr ,df=r ugha dh xbZ gS fuf'pr ,oa vuqekfur xfr rFkk vkjksih dh vksj ls mis{kk ds rF;ksa dk vfHkfu'p; ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA** Though learned counsel appearing for the proposed appellant has led through the record to bring home the contentions that the trial Court has returned the perverse finding as regard to negligence act; however, miserably fails to establish the same, as would warrant a leave to appeal.
One more aspect deserves mention, reflecting callousness on the part of the Government counsel in drafting the application seeking leave. Apparently, the respondent was tried for an offence under Section 279, 338, 304 A IPC forming subject matter of criminal case No.1554/2012 wherein acquittal has been recorded by the order dated 27.02.2015. However, while seeking leave to appeal against the said order the State Government seeks conviction of respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (I), 506 part 2 and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is beyond anybody's comprehension as to how in respect of acquittal of the charges of rash and negligent driving, the alleged offences can be directed to be tried for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (I), 506 Part 2 and Section 3/4 of POSCO Act, 2012.
It is therefore expected of the Government counsel as also the Officer In-charge of the case to be careful and vigilant With these observations, the application for leave to appeal stands rejected.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Loretta