Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1695 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Yogi

2008-07-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of conviction and sentence against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Chhipa Barod (for short `the learned trial Court) in regular criminal case No. 41/1994, whereby the learned trial Court imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in section 279 IPC and Rs. 1000/- has been imposed as a fine in section 304A IPC and in case of default in payment of fine the accused respondent shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment. (2). Brief facts of the case are that on 22.2.1994, complainant Deendayal submitted a written report at P.S. Chhipabarod to this effect that he was doing work in his field and his field is situated near road. One jeep bearing number RJ-28/T0003 which was being driven by Kailash Yogi came with fast speed, which resulted in accident of Dhulilal s/o Heeralal Kirad and he took away the jeep over the belly of Dhulilal. Dhulilal after becoming injured, fell down on the road. He, Babulal, Ramkalyan Nayak tried to stop the jeep but the driver of the jeep did not stop the jeep. Thereafter, Dhulilal was taken at Chhipabarod in a metador. (3). The police on the basis of this written report registered FIR against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. (4). The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 279 and 304A IPC. (5). The learned trial Court read over the charge for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC to the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. (6). The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 8 witnesses. (7). Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. (8). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.3.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences. (9). Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this instant appeal for enhancement of conviction and sentence. (10). (8). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.3.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences. (9). Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this instant appeal for enhancement of conviction and sentence. (10). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused respondent has not given proper sentence. Thus, conviction and sentence of accused respondent is liable to be enhanced. (11). Per-contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence. He submits that at the spot no independent witness was available. He submits that the prosecution has not produced I.O. of the case and there is great contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Lastly, he submits that the accused respondent is facing trial for the last 28 years which tantamount to a punishment and mental agony. Thus, the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by the learned trial Court needs to be interfered with and the accused respondent is liable to be acquitted. (12). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case as also the Judgment referred to above. (13). Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Div.) & Judicial Magistrate-I, Chhipabarod in regular criminal case No. 41/1994.