Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 373 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shri Ram

2006-02-03

HARBANS LAL

body2006
Honble LAL, J.–The instant appeal under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 3.4.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 481/2000 acquitting accused-appellant of the offence under Section 304-A IPC. (2). Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that accused- respondent Shriram while driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the culvert on which deceased Dara Singh was standing at about 12.00 p.m. On 29.7.2000, as a result of which he fell into the water and ultimately died due to drowning. The accused-respondent drove away the tractor from there without informing the police about this occurrence. On hearing the cries of Sushri Soni who was also standing on the culvert but seeing the tractor coming on a break-neck speed had run away from there, Banelal came there and after knowing the facts from Sushri Soni reported the matter to the police where- upon an FIR No. 409/2000 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused-respondent, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent. After trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 304-A IPC, but convicted him for the offence under Section 279 IPC and Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 250/- under each count and in default of payment of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days under each count. (3). Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the State has preferred an application for leave to appeal which was granted on 8.8.2005 and the accused-respondent was summoned through bailable warrant who has since appeared. (4). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for accused respondent and have perused the relevant record placed before me. (5). (4). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for accused respondent and have perused the relevant record placed before me. (5). A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 3.4.2004 makes it abundantly clear that after recording of the statements of Baldev Singh PW.1 and Vishambhar Dayal PW-2, the accused- respondent confessed his guilt where-upon the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of the prosecution and the trial Court without examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. heard the arguments and upon a perusal of the file passed the aforesaid judgment acquitting of the charge under Section 304-A IPC on the ground that the post-mortem report was not duly proved. As a matter of fact, the medical officer who prepared the post-mortem report was never summoned by the court nor the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor took any steps to inform the concerned doctor to appear in court to prove the post-mortem report. This apart, the factum of rash and negligence driving of the tractor by the accused-respondent was confessed by him in view of which the prosecution evidence was closed. The trial Court appears to have to even cared to examine the accused- respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If he had been examined and if he had admitted that the death of Dara Singh had taken place due to dashing of his tractor against the culvert and his falling into the river and drowning, there would not have been any lacunae in proving the charge against the accused-respondent. (6). Be that as it may, the learned Court below has not even followed the prescribed procedure for the trial of the case and it appears that the trial Court has abdicated its responsibility to do justice. It appears that in order to take a lenient view in the matter, the court has to convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Such an approach cannot be appreciated. But in view of what has been discussed above, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the trial Court to proceed with the trial from the stage it was stopped and to decide it afresh in accordance with law. (7). (7). In the result, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to proceed with the trial from the stage it was stopped and to decide it afresh in accordance with law.