Premlal Bhumia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
1 CRA-9270-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
th
ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9270 of 2025
PREMLAL BHUMIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Arun Kumar Paroha - Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Supriya Singh - Public Prosecutor for State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the present appellant being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Sehora, District Jabalpur (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No.96/2016 whereby the
present appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections
304 Part-II (seven counts) and 308 (nine counts) of the IPC and sentenced to
suffer ten years RI each on each count and fine of Rs.2,000/- each on each count
and five years RI each on each count and fine of Rs.20,00/- each on each count,
respectively, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.10.2015 the complainant,
Dhirendra Pal Singh Gadoria, lodged a report at Police Station Gosalpur, District
Jabalpur, stating therein that on the occasion of the Navratri festival, an idol ( )

ितमा
of Mahakali Durga had been installed at Mahakali Ground, Gosalpur. He and
several others were accompanying the idol for immersion. At about 6:00 p.m.,
while the procession was proceeding along the road, a Tata 709 bearing
registration No. MP-20-GA-6530 approached from the Katni side at a very high
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
2 CRA-9270-2025
speed. Despite being cautioned to slow down, the driver failed to control the

vehicle and struck six persons near the Cooperative Society premises at Gosalpur
Kachhpura, close to the Varnu intersection on NH-7. The driver then accelerated
the vehicle further and, at Gudhai Chowk, struck Ragmilan Kori of Dharampura,
who succumbed to his injuries. His body was taken to the Medical College,
Jabalpur. Several other persons also sustained injuries. The six persons injured
near the Cooperative Society premises were identified as Pankaj Pandey, Suny
Jain, Pappu alias Ajay Agarwal and Girja Barman, all residents of Gosalpur, and
Vipatlal Bargan and Dilip Raikwar, residents of Village Negai. They too were
taken to Jabalpur for treatment. The driver of the Tata 709, namely Premlal
Bhumia, thereafter collided with a tractor near the Varnu intersection, causing
damage to the tractor. The incident was witnessed by Santosh Agarwal and P.C.
Bargan. On the basis of the report, the FIR Ex.P/1 vide Crime No.432/2015 was
registered at Police Station Gosalpur, for offences punishable under Sections 304
and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon investigation commenced.
3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 33
witnesses, namely, Dhirendra Pal Singh (PW-1), Sanjay Kumar Khare (PW-2),
Mukesh Kumar Garg (PW-3), Ravindra Kumar Kori (PW-4), Premchand (PW-5),
Kishan Dubey (PW-6), Dilip Garg (PW-7), Surendra Chouksey (PW-8), Jaykumar
Kori (PW-9), Magan Barman (PW-10), Ashok Kumar (PW-11), Moorat Singh
(PW-12), Ramnaresh (PW-13), Hemchand Asati (PW-14), Ajeet Yadav (PW-15),
Lalu Barman (PW-16), Santosh Agrawal (PW-17), Santosh Kadere (PW-18),
Jaykumar Agrawal (PW-19), Vinod Kumar Kadere (PW-20), Dr. Deepak
Gayakwad (PW-21), Sachchidanand Singh (PW-22), Ramkumr Marko (PW-23),
Dr. Ashok Manan (PW-24), Dr. Virendra Khatik (PW-25), Surendra Singh (PW-
26), Ravishankar Chouraisya (PW-27), Santkumar Kori (PW-28), Vijay Soni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
3 CRA-9270-2025
(PW-28-A), Manish Gupta (PW-29), Narendra Kumar Beohar (PW-30), Arun

Kumar Sarote (PW-31), Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-32) and Narayan Prasad Kori
(PW-33) and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/58, the documents on record whereas in
defence, the accused placed Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3, the documents on record.
4. The learned trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence vide
the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 304 Part- II (seven counts) and 308 (nine counts) of
IPC and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment. In this manner,
the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present
appellant that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not
supported the story of prosecution. Though the factum of the accident has been
reiterated by them in their deposition but as far as the identity of the accused as the
driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, it has not been established beyond
reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that all the witnesses have admitted the
factum that they did not know the accused since prior and they have not seen the
accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The important
witness on behalf of the prosecution is Manish Gupta (PW-29), who is the owner
of the offending vehicle and who has stated that the offending vehicle was being
driven by the accused at the time of the incident but he in cross-examination has
admitted that he was not present on the spot at the time of the accident. He has not
given any document in respect of purchasing the offending vehicle, nor there is
any documentary evidence that the accused has been engaged by him as a driver
of the offending vehicle. Neither there is any record with him that the accused has
been engaged as a driver on the offending vehicle. He has not submitted any
document in respect of the salary given to the accused, nor any related documents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
4 CRA-9270-2025
He, in paragraph-6, has categorically admitted that at the instance of Sunil

Shrivastav, he is stating that the vehicle was being driven by accused-Premlal
Bhumia. Therefore, in entirety, the statement of this witness also does not provide
any help to the prosecution. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court without
there being any cogent or reliable evidence against the accused, has erroneously
convicted him. He prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction of accused
and to acquit him from the charges levelled against him.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer on the ground that the factum of accident is substantiated by
the witnesses, including the injured persons, who are Dhirendra Pal Singh (PW-1),
Sanjay Kumar Khare (PW-2), Mukesh Kumar Garg (PW-3), Ravindra Kumar Kori
(PW-4), Premchand (PW-5), Kishan Dubey (PW-6), Dilip Garg (PW-7), Surendra
Chouksey (PW-8), Jaykumar Kori (PW-9), Magan Barman (PW-10), Ashok
Kumar (PW-11), Moorat Singh (PW-12), Ramnaresh (PW-13), Hemchand Asati
(PW-14), Ajeet Yadav (PW-15), Lalu Barman (PW-16), Santosh Agrawal (PW-
17), Santosh Kadere (PW-18), Jaykumar Agrawal (PW-19), and Vinod Kumar
Kadere (PW-20). Furthermore, the owner of the offending vehicle, Manish Gupta
(PW-29) though he has been declared hostile, but after declaring hostile, he has
supported the version in respect of the accident against accused. He has given the
information on Ex.P/46, which has been signed by this witness and that clearly
indicates that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by
the accused. In view of the aforesaid submissions, she prayed to reject the
appeal.
7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record meticulously.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
5 CRA-9270-2025
8. The perusal of record clearly indicates that the witnesses, including

Dhirendra Pal Singh (PW-1), Sanjay Kumar Khare (PW-2), Mukesh Kumar Garg
(PW-3), Ravindra Kumar Kori (PW-4), Premchand (PW-5), Kishan Dubey (PW-
6), Dilip Garg (PW-7), Surendra Chouksey (PW-8), Jaykumar Kori (PW-9),
Magan Barman (PW-10), Ashok Kumar (PW-11), Moorat Singh (PW-12),
Ramnaresh (PW-13), Hemchand Asati (PW-14), Ajeet Yadav (PW-15), Lalu
Barman (PW-16), Santosh Agrawal (PW-17), Santosh Kadere (PW-18), Jaykumar
Agrawal (PW-19), and Vinod Kumar Kadere (PW-20), though have supported the
factum of the accident, but in cross-examination, some of them have admitted that
they were not present at the time of the accident on the spot and some of them
have admitted that they have not seen the driver of the offending vehicle. They did
not know the accused and did not see the occurrence of accident. Some of them
turned hostile. Therefore, keeping in view the cross-examination of these
witnesses, there is no cogent and reliable evidence in their statement which clearly
depict that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle. Santosh Agrawal
(PW-17), who stated in chief-examination that he know the accused, but in cross-
examination he admitted categorically that since accident he know the accused.
Thereafter, he admitted that when the accident took place, he has seen the accused
and thereafter he is seeing the accused in Court. He, further in paragraph-4 has
admitted that the name of the accused is known to him on the information given
by the police and police has also given him information about the offending
vehicle and the accused. He did not know the accused since earlier. Santosh
Kadere (PW-18), Jaykumar Agrawal (PW-19), and Vinod Kumar Kadere (PW-20)
have stated in the first line of their chief-examination that they did not know the
accused. Jaykumar Agrawal (PW-19) has admitted that police has informed him
that the name of the accused is Premlal but he has not seen the factum of accident.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
6 CRA-9270-2025
Vinod Kumar Kadere (PW-20) also admitted in the cross-examination that he has

not seen who was driving the offending vehicle.
9. As far as the statement of Manish Gupta (PW-29), who is the owner of the
offending vehicle is concerned, he turned hostile, but after declaring hostile he
admitted that he has given the information on Ex.P/46 that the accused was
driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, but in cross-examination
he admitted that he was not present on spot. Neither he has submitted any
document in respect of purchasing of the vehicle, engagement or appointment of
accused as a driver of the offending vehicle, salary given to the accused and other
service record in respect of the present applicant, nor he has submitted any
document in respect of the engagement of accused on the offending vehicle on the
date of accident as a driver. He further in paragraph-6 has categorically admitted
that through Sunil Shrivastava he came to know that the offending vehicle was
being driven by accused-Premlal.
10. The statement of Manish Gupta (PW-29) keeping in view the statement
given by him in cross-examination and in absence of such document which cannot
be filed on behalf of him, a doubt arises in respect of the engagement of accused
on the offending vehicle as a driver. The other witnesses are the driver and
investigating officer.
11. As far as the identity of accused as a driver of the offending vehicle at the
time of the accident is concerned, it is not established with the cogent and reliable
evidence by the prosecution. The learned trial Court's observation and conclusion
that the accused has, by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and
dashed the various deceased and the injured person is erroneous. It is settled
principle of criminal law that the appellant/accused is deemed to be innocent and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
7 CRA-9270-2025
heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable

doubt. If two view are possible from the evidence, the view favourable to the
accused would prevail. The suspicion however grave cannot take place of
evidence.
12. In case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14 SCC
151 and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605 , the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted.
13. Ex consequenti, keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid cases
and having regard to the foregoing discussions, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court is set
aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges by extending the
benefit of doubt. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-accused shall
be refunded to him.
14. Appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith in this case, if not required in
any other case.
15. Order of the trial Court with regard to seized property is hereby affirmed.
Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
16. The present criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent
indicated herein above.
17. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the Trial Court (if
available) be sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary
action.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50887
8 CRA-9270-2025
18. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the jail authorities concerned for

information and compliance.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 29-07-2026
13:49:12