Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 901 (RAJ)

Pit Ram S/o Ghadsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-01

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed in connection with the judgment initially delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, Dungargarh (Churu) on 1.3.1996 and, thereafter, the judgment delivered by the First Appellate Court dated 9.4.2002, whereby the accused - petitioner was found guilty under sections. 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and various sentences were awarded. 2. The FIR was lodged on 4.4.1995, according to which, on that day, at about 5.00 p.m., the accident took place, during which Mohan Ram was fatally injured, Pemaram, Budharam and Mircharam who were passengers in the truck, received injuries. Budha Ram lodged the report, wherein he mentioned that the driver was some unknown person and his identity could not be ascertained. It was further mentioned that the number of the truck was also not known to Budha Ram. A case was registered under section. 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, a challan was filed against the petitioner and he was put to trial, which ended in the manner suggested above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the record of the trial Court. 4. I have no hesitation in my mind that it is very difficult to sustain the conclusions drawn by the said two Courts against the petitioner. It was a case in which the identity of the driver was never established satisfactorily. It is not in dispute that during the statements, recorded under section . 161 of the Criminal Penal Code, the three injured persons Budha Ram, Mircha Ram and Perna Ram unanimously gave the name of the driver as Jeet Ram. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the driver of the truck which was involved in the accident was previously unknown to these witnesses. In these circumstances, the identification of the accused as driver, during trial, is of no consequence. PW-6 Banwari in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was not conversant with the name of the driver. He could not tell the name of the accused in the Court. Similar is the testimony of Budha Ram, who has mentioned in the FIR that the driver was some unknown person. PW-6 Banwari in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was not conversant with the name of the driver. He could not tell the name of the accused in the Court. Similar is the testimony of Budha Ram, who has mentioned in the FIR that the driver was some unknown person. PW-5 Peam Ram in his cross-examination has stated that the driver was not seen by him after the accident and he simply heard that the driver ran away. 5. The learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court were influenced by the testimony of the Investigating Officer as well as the testimony of PW-9 Dhanpat Singh who was the owner of the truck. The Investigating Officer deposed that he issued a notice (Ex.P/18) under section. 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the truck owner Dhanpat Singh and in response, Dhanpat Singh, on 8.4.1995, gave a written reply that Pit Ram S/o Gharsi Ram was working as a driver on his truck bearing No. RJ 10 G.0209 for the last 7-8 months. Thus, the Investigating Officer had no personal knowledge in the matter. The testimony of Dhanpat Singh cannot prove beyond the fact that the accused was in the employment of Dhanpat Singh as driver. However, who was actually driving the truck on 4.4.1995, it was not in the knowledge of Dhanpat Singh. He has specifically stated so in his cross-examination and has made it clear that the has no knowledge as to who was the driver when the accident took place. 6. I, therefore, find that the conclusions drawn by the learned two Courts to the effect that the petitioner-Pit Ram was the driver at the time of the accident, as based on misreading of evidence and amounted to miscarriage of justice. As pointed out earlier, the number of the truck which was involved in the accident was not disclosed in the FIR. In such a situation, there should be cogent evidence to establish as to how it was concluded that the truck belonging to Dhanpat Singh was found to be involved in the accident. The Investigating Officer, Ram Kishan (PW-11) has not clarified the situation in this respect. 7. The evidence which has come on record does not establish that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. The Investigating Officer, Ram Kishan (PW-11) has not clarified the situation in this respect. 7. The evidence which has come on record does not establish that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. PW-6 Banwari has stated that the truck was going with normal speed and due to some obstruction on the road, the truck went turtle and was over turned. Other witnesses have stated that the truck was with high speed, but they have simply stated that the truck over turned and the resultant accident took place. PW-5 Pemaram has specifically admitted that before the truck got over turned, prior to that, there was a `khud' on the road. In these circumstances, the site map (Ex.P/13) and the site note (Ex.P/13-A) become very significant. I find that the requisite honestly has not been shown by the Investigating Officer while preparing Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/13-A. The `khud', which, according to the witness, was situate, has not been shown in Ex.P/13 or Ex.P/13-A. The testimony of the eye-witness is more or less to the effect that the truck over turned and they received injuries. Needless to say that the truck may over-turn on account of many reasons, one of which has come in the testimony of PW-5 Pemaram. In nut-shell, the evidence falls much short of proving that the accident was necessarily caused on account of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. 8. In view of what has been said above, I find that the conviction of the petitioner has been based on misreading of evidence and there was absolutely no material to give a finding of guilt against the accused. 9. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The judgments of the two Courts finding the petitioner guilty, are set aside. The petitioner stands acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released forthwith, in this case, unless wanted in connection with any other case.Revision Petition allowed. *******