AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) Cr.P.C . has been preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.12.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (hereinafter to be referred as "the trial Court") in Original Criminal Case No. 198/1993 whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent Chutra Ram for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A IPC.
The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of written report (Ex. P/1) submitted by PW-1 - Lokesh Chandra Kothari on 02.12.1992, the Police Station Phalodi has registered an FIR No. 175/1992 against an unknown person. In the written report (Ex. P/1), PW-1 Lokesh Chandra Kothari has mentioned that his son Ruchit Kothari studying in Class VIII has gone to school today at about 10:00 am and at about 2:00 pm, some persons from the colony has informed that an accident took place on the National Highway. He along with two friends immediately reached at the spot where he saw that his son Ruchit Kothari and his friend Chandra Shekhar Soni are lying dead as they have been crushed by Truck No. RRF 5641. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that though the truck loaded with stone was standing at the spot but the truck driver was not found on the spot.
After investigation, the Police has filed charge-sheet against the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and the learned trial Court has also framed charges against him for the aforesaid offences.
The prosecution has produced as many as 5 prosecution witnesses and has also got also exhibited 27 documents to prove the charges against the accused/respondent. The statement of the accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
However, no evidence was produced in defence.
The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence, has acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and for the offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(11), 187, 139/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The trial Court has observed that the accused/respondent was charged for the aforesaid offences on the basis of Exhibit-P/18, an information supplied by the owner of the truck wherein, he has informed that the accused/respondent was the driver on the truck involved in the accident. The trial Court has held that Exhibit-P/18 has not been proved by the prosecution by producing the owner of the truck in question. The trial Court has also held that the prosecution has failed to produce any eye-witness of the incident, who can alleged that at the time of the accident, the accused/respondent was driver the truck involved in the accident. After holding this, the trial Court has held that as the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of accident, the accused/respondent was driving the truck involved in the accident, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offences for which he was charged.
After hearing learned counsel for the accused/respondent and after carefully scrutinized the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the only evidence available against the accused/respondent is Exhibit-P/18, the notice given by the Police to the owner of the truck namely, Lalluram wherein, he has informed that on truck No. 5641 involved in the accident, the accused/respondent was the driver. Admittedly, Lalluram, owner of the truck has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution and as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the document Ex.P/18 before the trial Court. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court whereby, the accused/respondent was acquitted for the offences for which he was charged.
Hence, there is no force in this criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the same is hereby dismissed.