Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1303 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Nathu Lal

2008-05-09

M.C.BHAGWATI

body2008
JUDGMENT This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16th December, 1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kota City (North), Kota whereby, the accused-respondent Nathu Lal has not been found guilty and acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. The facts, giving rise to the prosecution case, are briefly stated as under : That on 26th February, 1981 at about 10 p.m. one old person was coming from the direction of Mohan Talkies and crossing the road. It is alleged that one truck RJR 1943 came with a fast speed and his driver was driving this truck rashly and negligently and hit this man from the back. As a result of which that person fell on the road, his intestine came out from the body and died on the spot. The complainant P.W. 4 Salim Ahmed who was also going aside the deceased Ram Niwas, submitted a written report Ex. P/5 to the police who registered the case and after usual investigation filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Nathu Lal for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC who after trial has been acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the accused-respondent in the Court. This appeal has been listed for the first time after 4th February, 1998 for hearing, and now after having a glance in the impugned judgment it is not found just and proper to adjourn the same for the appearance of the accused-respondent and so in the interest of justice only the arguments of Shri B. K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State were heard and the relevant record available before me was cautiously perused. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has basically assailed the impugned judgment of the lower Court on two grounds. Firstly, the evidence of the prosecution witness has not been appreciated in right perspective. Secondly, the evidence of P.W. 4 Salim Ahmed, who has identified the accused Nathu Lal, the said driver of the truck at the time of the occurrence and present in the Court, has wrongly been jettisoned by the trial Court. 4. To bring home the offence of Section 304-A of IPC the prosecution is required to prove the death of a person by rash and negligent act of the accused. 4. To bring home the offence of Section 304-A of IPC the prosecution is required to prove the death of a person by rash and negligent act of the accused. The Section applies only to such acts which are rash or negligent and are directly the cause of death of a person. 5. Having scanned the impugned judgment and the prosecution evidence available on record, it is found that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the accused Nathu Lal at the time of occurrence was driving the said truck rashly and negligently. Mere use of words that the truck was being driven with a fast speed is not enough to prove the basic ingredients of the offence of Section 304-A. The deceased Ram Niwas at the time of death was 55 years old and was going on foot in the main market of Kota City. It is not that only deceased Ram Niwas was going on the road but occurrence is said to have taken place at 8 : 10 p.m. on a busy public road. The place of occurrence is situated in a crowded area of Kota City. In this backdrop of the case, if we analyze the site plan Ex. P/3 in the light of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that had the accused driven the said truck rashly or negligently, he would have rammed other persons going on road also. But it is not the case of the prosecution. The prosecution case is that the accused drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit a passerby on the road as a result of which he, died of this accident. 6. The prosecution is not found to have proved the speed with which the truck was being driven by the accused not the prosecution has proved as to now rashly and negligently the accused had driven the truck and caused the death of Ram Niwas? The prosecution has examined only two witnesses P.W. 2 Ram Lal and P.W. 4 Salim Ahmed to prove its case. P.W. 2 Ram Lal, has simply deposed that one person 7 or 8 feet ahead to him was going and crossing the Foot-Kot power house road Chauraha, meanwhile truck 1943 came from the direction of Sarover Talkies and hit that person and moved ahead. P.W. 2 Ram Lal, has simply deposed that one person 7 or 8 feet ahead to him was going and crossing the Foot-Kot power house road Chauraha, meanwhile truck 1943 came from the direction of Sarover Talkies and hit that person and moved ahead. This witness nowhere stated that the driver of the truck was driving it rashly or negligently. P.W. 4 Salim Ahmed has simply stated that truck rammed a person on the crowded road who ultimately, died as a result of this accident. That truck was being driven by the accused Nathu Lal who himself disclosed his name after alighting from the truck. This witness also stated that the accused-respondent was driving the truck rashly or negligently. Mere use of words "high speed" "rashly or negligently" do not make the act of any accused rash or negligent. The lower Court has critically analyzed the statements of the prosecution witnesses and properly appreciated the whole evidence and the finding of the lower Court is found to be cogent and sound. Not only that the prosecution story has not been corroborated by the prosecution witnesses but the investigation officer of this case has also not been examined who was required to prove the site plan Ex. P/6. The judgment of the lower Courts is found to be well reasoned and merited. 7. I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the lower Court. To my view, the criminal appeal filed by the State is fully devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of above, the State appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.