--.''"-)'' Hfi'y • SINGLE BBNCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. Q-iminaLAppeaINp.276/1996 The State ofM.P. (now C.G.) Versus Aditya Siagh, S/o Cbandrapal Singh Thakur, aged 20 years, R/o Mahaveerpara, Dongargarh, PoUce Station & Tahsft- Dongai^arh, Distnct Rajnaadgaon (MP) (now C.G.) Applicatlon for leave tp appealu/S 378 (3) pfthe Cr.P.C./Appeal u/S 378(l)oftheCr.P.C. Present: - Shri Pradeep Singh, Paael Lawyer for the State/appeBant. Shri PraftiU BIiarat, coiuisel for the respondent. Respondent Issifi'BSiNl'®8'" ORAL-JUDGMBNT (Delivered on 08/12/2009) 1. The State has preferred this appeal agaiust the order ofacquittal dated 27th May, 1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh in Cnminal Case No. 432/1988, whereby the leamed Judicial Magistrate has acquitted fhe respondent froin fhe charge under Sections 279 & 338 ofthe IPC. 2. Case of fhe prosecutioa, ia brief, is ftiat on 12.11.1988, respondent Aditya Siagh drove his Hero Honda motorcycle rashly aad negligcntly aad dashed 8 years girl Gayatri Bai, resulting in fi-acture of her lefit leg. Report of the iacident was lodged by one Raju Tiwan in fhe Police Station-Dongargarh. FIR was registered. Stateinent iinder Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recoried. Iniured- Gavatri Bai was sent for medical exaiuiaation. After completion of iavest^ation, chai^e sheet under Sections 279 & 338 of the IPC was ffled against tbe respondent before fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Doagargarh. 3. The leamed Judicial Magistrate has fracaed charge luider Sections 279 & 338 of the IPC against the respondent. The cbarge was read over and -V.- i ^^-. !s., -2- -Q BKilW^ expiained to the respoudent, who abjured the guilt aad pleaded that he has been falsely implicated iu fhe case. 4. I have heard leamed counsel for both the pardes aad have also perused the record of Criminal Case No.432/1988. 5. It is uiifortunate fhat chai^e sheet iu fhe matter was ffled before the Judicial Magistrate on 30.11.1988 aad the charge agamst the respondent was fi-amed on 10.6.1993. The prosecution was afforded so niany opportuiuties to adduce its evidence, however, evea after getting luany opportuiuties, the prosecution, except one evidenee i.e. Dr. Sachadev (P.W. 1), has not been able to adduce aay ofher evidence. Tbe learaed Court below has also issued baUable wanant agamst the witnesses for takiag their evidence. As a last opportuiiily, fhe leamed Court below has fixed the niatter on 27.5.1995 to adduce the evidence. However, on fhat date also, the prosecution has not been able to adduce any evidence to prove fhe guUt agauist ttie respondent under Sections 279 S& 338 ofthe IPC. 6. It is evident that so many opportunities were afforded to the prosecution for adduciag the evidence to prove fhe casc agaiast the respondent under Sections 279 & 338 of the IPC, but the pBosecution has failed to adduce aay material evidence before fhe Court. The leamed Court below for waat of sufficient evidence against the respondent has acquitted the respondent fiwin the charge under Sections 279 8s 338 ofthe IPC. 7. Havuig thus consMered fhe evidence available on record, I am ofthe view fhat the leamed Court below has not comniitted auv error ia acquitting fhe respondent from fhe charge fi-amed agauist hini. The acquittal of the respondent is weU inerited and does not call for any uiterference. 8. In the result, the appeal being devoid of any inerit deserves to be dismissed and is accordiugly dffimissed. ---- Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge