Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 405 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Anju Saxena

2004-03-16

HARBANS LAL

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by the State under Section 378 Cr.PC. is 1 directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus in Criminal Case No. 210/96 whereby, accused-respondent Smt. Anju Saxena has been acquitted of the offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 134/187 of the Motor 5 Vehicles, 1988. 2. The prosecution case in nutshel is that on 23.5.1996 at about 10.15 A M. one Jagan Singh PW-1 was hit from behind by a Maruti Car No. RJ-14-C-4694 as a result of which his right foot was fractured, besides sustaining other injuries. Madan Lal PW-2 made a report in this regard at Police Station Reengus herein, he alleged that Maruti Car No. RJ-14-C-4694 came from the side of Sikar at a fast speed and dashed against his uncle Jagan Singh coming on the wrong side and accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver. An FIR No. 136/1996 came to be registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet as filed against the accused-respondent. At the trial, accused-respondent denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and got exhibited three documents in support of the charges. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. who again denied that her car met with any accident. After hearing both sides and on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent vide judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial Court has lo committed error in not relying upon the prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused. According to him, the over writing about the number of Car is a minor discrepancy which does not render the entire case doubtful and unbelievable. This was due to a bonafide mistake. 4. The trial court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accident occurred by Maruti Car No. RJ-14-C 4694 and the same was being driven by the accused respondent at the relevant time. 5. Learned PP has strongly challenged this finding of the trial court. He has argued that the trial court has committed error in not relying upon the prosecution evidence and acquitting the accused. 5. Learned PP has strongly challenged this finding of the trial court. He has argued that the trial court has committed error in not relying upon the prosecution evidence and acquitting the accused. According to him the over-writing regarding the car number is a minor or slight discrepancy which does not render the entire prosecution case doubtful or unbelievable. Learned counsel for accused-respondent has supported the judgment of the trial court and has contended that the trial court has rightly found the prosecution evidence as unreliable. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire record thoroughly in the light of the rival submissions made at the bar. 7. Admittedly, there is over-writing regarding the number of car in the F.I.R. Ex.P-1 statement of Madan Lal u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.D-1 formal F.I.R. Ex.P-5, statement of Jagan Singh u/s. 161 Cr.PC. and seizure memo of Car Ex.P- 3. The name of the driver of the car is not mentioned in the Fl R. Ex.P-1 or the police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also not mentioned therein that the car was being driven by a lady. If Madan Lal PW-2, Jagan Singh PW-1 had seen the Maruti Car which dashed against Jagan Singh, there was no reason why they did not mention at least in the F.I.R. of their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the Maruti Car was being driven by a lady at the time of the accident. A perusal of their court evidence also makes it plain that they have not identified the accused respondent even in the court as the person who was driving the car at the relevant time. No test identification of the accused respondent has been got conducted during the investigation. They have also not explained as to why the fact that Maruti Car was being driven by a lady was not mentioned in the H.R. and in their statements under Section 161 Cr P.C. which were recorded on the same day. 8. This has also come in the evidence on record that a wireless message was also given to the Police Station Govindgarh to stop the Maruti Car stating that an accident had taken place by that car and the car in question was stopped by the police at Govindgarh. 8. This has also come in the evidence on record that a wireless message was also given to the Police Station Govindgarh to stop the Maruti Car stating that an accident had taken place by that car and the car in question was stopped by the police at Govindgarh. But neither any person from Police Station Govindgarh has been examined nor any document with regard to wireless message given to the Police Station Govindgarh has been so produced nor any other document has been produced to show that any such wireless message for stopping the Maruti Car of the accused respondent was given and the Maruti Car in question was stopped by the Police Station Govindgarh. This could have been a very valuable peace of corroborative evidence, but the prosecution has failed to adduce such evidence. 9. Madan Lal PW-2: Jagan Singh PW-1 and Ramavtar PW-3 have stated that the nearby shops were opened at the time of the accident but no one of the shop-keepers of the nearby shops has been examined to prove that the accident had occurred by the car in question and it was being driven by the accused-respondent. Therefore, there is ample force in the argument of the learned counsel for accused-respondent that if any of them had been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution had been examined, to he would not have supported the prosecution story but would have negatived it against the prosecution. 10. It appears that the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent only on the basis of an endorsement dated 23 5.1996 on Ex.P-8 notice of even date to the effect that at the time of incident, accused respondent was driving the car. But strangely enough this notice has not been put to the accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor the Investigating Officer has been examined in this case. This cannot be legally read against the accused respondent. 11. Thus, from the prosecution evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accident occurred by Maruti Car RJ-14-C-4694 and it was being driven by the accused-respondent at the relevant time. 12. The accused respondent has examined Jafar Hussain DW-1 and Dr. V.K. Khanna DW-2 in her defence who have both stated that the husband of the accused-respondent who was an advocate and was conducting a case before the learned Addl. 12. The accused respondent has examined Jafar Hussain DW-1 and Dr. V.K. Khanna DW-2 in her defence who have both stated that the husband of the accused-respondent who was an advocate and was conducting a case before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sikar on 23.5.1996. He suffered an heart-attack. On being informed, they reached there and accompanied the accused respondent in her Maruti Car RJ-14-C-4694 Jaipur. They started from Sikar at about 12.00 noon. Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length but nothing material could be elicited from them, on the basis of which it could be said that they were not telling the truth or their evidence was tin-worthy of credit. From their evidence it is reasonably established that the car in question was in the court premises in Sikar upto about 12.00 noon on 23.5.1996. Under these facts and circumstances, it is rendered reasonably doubtful that the accident took place in Reengus at 10.15 a.m. by the said car. This evidence coupled with the admitted position of over writing about the number of car in the F I.R. Ex.P-1, statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. and seizure memo of car Ex.P-3 renders the prosecution story reasonably doubtful and unbelievable. Learned trial court has, therefore, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accident occurred by Maruti Car No. RJ-14-C-4694 and the same was being driven by the accused respondent at the time of accident. 13. The innocence of the accused gets further strengthened by the order of his acquittal and the same ought not to be up-set unless there are compelling reasons and the view taken by the trial court in the instant case cannot be said to be perse illegal, manifestly erroneous or un-sustainable and if got interfered with would result in miscarriage of justice. It is also welt settled that where two views are possible and even if a different view from the so one taken by the trial court is possible. The High Court should not normally interfered with the finding of acquittal unless the same is palpably unreasonable or perse illegal. It is also welt settled that where two views are possible and even if a different view from the so one taken by the trial court is possible. The High Court should not normally interfered with the finding of acquittal unless the same is palpably unreasonable or perse illegal. No such case is made out in the instant case, therefore, there does not appear to be any cogent and valid ground to take a different view from the one taken by the court below and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed Acquittal Upheld. *******