JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Public Prosecutor. 2. By way of filing criminal leave to appeal, the State Government is challenging the judgment dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.142/2010, whereby, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent Om Parakash Jat for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is totally erroneous because two eye witnesses PW-2 Shish Pal and PW-3 Vinod have expressly stated before the trial Court that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent accident took place, in which, one Inder Sain died on 29.03.2007. Further, it is argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but learned Magistrate while considering the question of contradiction in the statement of eye witnesses PW-2 Shish Pal and PW-3 Vinod acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him for committing offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC, but infact there is no material contradiction in the statement of both the eye witnesses. Therefore, on the basis of testimony of both the eye witnesses, the accused was to be convicted because prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 5. As per facts of the case, on 29.05.2007 at about 06:00 PM the respondent Om Parakash Jat while driving Tractor No.RJ31-R-7549 rash and negligently hit the deceased Indersaind, which resulted into his death. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the respondent Om Parakash Jat at Police Station Hanumangarh Town under Section 279 and 304-A IPC after investigation challan was filed and trial took place in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Hanumangarh. 6. It is true that two eye witnesses viz. PW-2 Shish Pal PW-3 Vinod were examined in the trial, but other witnesses PW-4 Shahab Ram, PW-7 Surendra Kumar and PW-8 Rupa Ram were turned hostile in the trial. The learned trial court while assessing the evidentiary value of statements of PW-2 Shish Pal PW-3 Vinod, observed that there is material contradiction in the statements of both the eye witnesses. 7. In my opinion, when material contradictions are in existence, then it is not proper to convict any accused upon the testimony of such type of witnesses. 8. The learned trial court while assessing the evidentiary value of statements of PW-2 Shish Pal PW-3 Vinod, observed that there is material contradiction in the statements of both the eye witnesses. 7. In my opinion, when material contradictions are in existence, then it is not proper to convict any accused upon the testimony of such type of witnesses. 8. As per arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor for sending notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act to Roopram, who has categorically stated that Tractor was driven by the respondent Om Parakash Jat, it is obvious that the day on which occurrence took place, the respondent Om Parakash Jat was driving the Tractor in question. 9. In this case, it is required to be seen that whether while driving Tractor the respondent Om Parakash Jat committed any offence of accident or not. It is not the question that who was driving the Tractor. The question is whether respondent Om Parakash Jat was driving Tractor rashly and negligently. Therefore, the prosecution was required to prove the accident allegation with regard to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor in question by the respondent Om Parakash Jat. 10. The finding given by the trial court with regard to material contradiction in the statement of eye witnesses PW-2 Shish Pal and PW-3 Vinod is based upon sound reasons, therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality while acquitting the respondent Om Parakash Jat for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC on the ground of benefit of doubt. 11. In this view of the matter, the criminal leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.Leave to Appeal Dismissed. *******