Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2790 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Rampukar Rai

2005-10-24

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-This is a State appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i), CrPC against the Judgment and order dated 04.02.2002 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Case No. 715/1995 (235/1994), State vs. Rampukar Rai), whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 153, 175 of the Indian Railway Act, 1988 and under Section 304-A, IPC. 2. The matter is pending since long for procuring the presence of the accused respondent. Inspite of several efforts being made, presence of accused respondent could be procured. On the previous date of hearing when the matter came up as the accused respondent after several efforts being made by the Court could not be traced out, then, the learned Public Prosecutor was asked to examine the matter and as to whether on merits the case can be disposed of . In these circumstances, the matter has come up today. 3. With the consent of learned Public Prosecutor the matter is finally heard. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 15.01.1994 at about 11.00 PM Raja Ram complainant submitted a written report at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction stating, inter alia, therein that at about 5:45 PM on that day on the railway faathak, a jeep which was crossing the railway line met with an accident by the train which was coming from the side of Hanmangarh and as a result of the accident the persons sitting in the jeep died. On the above information, FIR No. 29/1994 was registered. After investigation, challan under Section 304-A, IPC as also under Sections 153 and 175 of the Indian Railway Act, 1988 was submitted. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses and tendered some documents in evidence. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused in the statements under Section 313, CrPC denied the prosecution case but accepted the post-mortem report of the deceased and no defence witness was produced. 6. The trial Court after hearing both sides, acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge framed against him for the reason that the prosecution could not prove the fact that on the day of the incident, it was the accused respondent, who was on duty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 7. The trial Court after hearing both sides, acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge framed against him for the reason that the prosecution could not prove the fact that on the day of the incident, it was the accused respondent, who was on duty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 7. In the present case, the learned trial Court after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion in Para No. 12 of the Judgment and mentioned that it was not established by the prosecution evidence that on the day when incident took place, it was the accused respondent who was on duty. The finding arrived at by the learned trial Court appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It was necessary for the prosecution to have produced the evidence to show that the accused on the date of the accident was the Gateman and on duty, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. 8. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor at length, I do not find any reason to defer from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. There appears to be no merit in this State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the State appeal stands dismissed after confirming the Judgment and order dated 04.02.2002 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanmangarh, in Criminal Case No. 715/1995 (235/1994) (State vs. Rampukar Rai).