AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant complainant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment.
By way of this application for leave to appeal preferred under Section 378 read with Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C ., the applicant craves leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Sujangarh in Appeal No.18/2015 whereby, the appellate court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 Nauratanmal and quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh in Criminal Case No.89/2011 whereby, the respondent was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
After appreciating the arguments advanced at bar and after going through the impugned judgment and record, I find no reason or justification for granting leave to the applicant complainant to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
The accident is alleged to have occurred on 07.06.2011 in which, Ankit aged 22 years, who was driving the motorcycle No.RJ-14-37M-5284 was hit by a Maruti Van No.RJ-10-TA-0506 resulting into injuries being caused to him leading to his death.
The FIR of the incident was lodged by Laxmipat, uncle of the deceased. In the said FIR, the name of driver of the offending vehicle is not mentioned. The I.O. gave notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act to the registered owner of the vehicle namely Shri Jagdish Prasad on 10.06.2011 who allegedly replied to the notice mentioning that his younger brother Nauratanmal (the respondent accused) was driving the Maruti Van on the fateful day. However, the said Jagdish Prasad did not support the prosecution story at the trial and was declared hostile. He denied giving reply to the notice given by the I.O. under Section 133 of the M.V. Act. The witness Omprakash (PW-9) claimed to be an eye-witness of the incident, however, his statement was recorded by the I.O. on 20.06.2011 i.e. after 13 days of the incident. The appellate court further noticed that the said Omprakash claimed that he had informed Laxmipat of the entire details of the incident including the name of driver of the offending vehicle. However, this fact was importantly missing in the written report (Ex.P/18) submitted by Laxmipat at the Police Station Chhapar.
In view of the above, this Court expresses concurrence with the findings recorded by the trial court that the prosecution failed to prove identity of the driver of the offending vehicle by leading cogent evidence.
In this background, I am not inclined to grant leave to the applicant for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.08.2016 and thus, the instant application for grant of leave to file appeal is hereby rejected as devoid of any merit.
Record be returned to the trial court.