Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 927 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Geesu Khan

2000-07-27

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 17.12.1980 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat in Case No. 451/75 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent-Gheesu Khan for the offence under sections 304-A& 279 IPC. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : PW 2 Kewalnath lodged a report Ex.P/6 in the Police Station Sojat on 23.11.1975 stating that at about 9.00 a.m. in the village Lunawas near Talab a truck was being driven by accused-respondent and he was driving that truck rashly and negligently as a result of which, by the left back wheel of that truck, deceased-Binjaram, a boy of 8 years died. On this report, police registered a case under sections 304-A, 279 IPC and got the post-mortem report of the deceased child and, thereafter, submitted a challan. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the accused-respondent for the offence under sections 279 & 304-A 1PC on 5.3.1976 and thereafter many witnesses were examined and statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after recording evidence, vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.1980 acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him. Against the said judgment and order dated 17.12.1980 passed by the learned Magistrate, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 3. In this appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State argued that from the evidence on record, it is well established that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the accused-respondent and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent supported the impugned judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the record of the case. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the accused-respondent vide his judgment dated 17.12.1980, has come to the following conclusions : (1) That the accident took place at a distance of only 25 pavras from the place the truck in question started, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the truck was in high speed at the time of accident. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the accused-respondent vide his judgment dated 17.12.1980, has come to the following conclusions : (1) That the accident took place at a distance of only 25 pavras from the place the truck in question started, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the truck was in high speed at the time of accident. (2) That the deceased dashed against the left back wheel of the truck, therefore, for this act, the driver of the truck accused-respondent cannot be held responsible. 7. To impose criminal liability under section 304-A, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct that of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the cause causans, it is not engouth that it may have been the causa sine qua non, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurban Hussain Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 616 . 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shakiin Khader etc. v. Nausher Gama & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1324 , has held that speed is not the sole criterion for determination of rash and negligent driving of car. 9. In the present case, the accident took place with the left back wheel of the truck and in such circumstances, accused-respondent, who was driving the truck, cannot know who has dashed with back wheel of the truck. Had accident taken place in front of the truck, the position would have been different and, therefore, in this case, version of some of the prosecution witnesses that truck was in high speed, therefore, it should be construed that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the accused-respondent, cannot be accepted. 10. In my opinion, the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of which the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under sections 304-A & 279 IPC, are correct as they are based on proper appreciation of evidence and they do not suffer from any infirmity. 10. In my opinion, the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of which the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under sections 304-A & 279 IPC, are correct as they are based on proper appreciation of evidence and they do not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, no interference with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate is called for.For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed, after affirming the judgment and order dated 17.12.1980 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat.State appeal dismissed. *******