Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 969 (RAJ)

Amin Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-17

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.8.1999 whereby the trial Court has convicted the present petitioner for the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that on 10.12.1987, at 2.30 pm, a written report Ex.P-4 was lodged at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur stating therein that at about 10.00 am Durgalal and other students Ramphal, Prem Singh and Ashok were going to school. Near Gawdi Kala crossing, Vehicle No. Rs. 7341 was going ahead and the vehicle No. RNE 196 was Rs. railing behind the above vehicle. The Vehicle No. RNE 196 hit Durgalal and he died on the spot. Thereafter, Buniyad and Amin, who were the drivers of the vehicles, ran away from the place of occurrence after putting the vehicle on fire. On this report, F.I.R. No. 377/1987 was registered. The present petitioner, who was the driver of vehicle No. RNE 196, was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code The trial Court framed charges against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code and Sections 112 and 123 of the M.V. Act. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The accused- petitioner was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code The learned trial Court, after trial, convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and sentenced as above. The petitioner preferred appeal, which too has been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence in right perspective and when the conclusion and reasoning are perverse, it can be assailed in the revision petition. There is no eye-witness to the incident. None of the witnesses have supported the prosecution story. PW-2 Ramdhan is a concocted witness. He does not inspire confidence. He is a designed witness and hence the conviction of the present petitioner should be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no perversity in the finding of the Courts below. 5. None of the witnesses have supported the prosecution story. PW-2 Ramdhan is a concocted witness. He does not inspire confidence. He is a designed witness and hence the conviction of the present petitioner should be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no perversity in the finding of the Courts below. 5. PW-1 Chiranji has stated the incident but in his cross-examination he has clearly stated that he has not seen the accident. Other witness PW-3 Moolchand is witness of site plan and he has not seen the accident. Same is the story of PW-4 Mishrilal. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not stated to the police that he had seen the occurrence. PW-5 Ram Sahai has not stated anything in support of the prosecution story and he has been declared hostile. Hence, these four witnesses could not help the prosecution in any way. Only witness remains is PW-2 Ramdhan, who has stated that he saw the occurrence and present petitioner Amin, who was driving the vehicle No. RNE 196, hit Durgalal and due to the negligence of the present petitioner, Durgalal died. He has deposed before the trial Court as if he is an eye-witness but nothing of this sort has been stated in the F.I.R. Ex.P-4, which was lodged by PW-2 Ramdhan himnself. The contention of the prosecution is that PW-2 Ramdhan reached at the spot immediately as he was seeing the occurrence from his agricultural field which is nearby the place of occurrence. Ex.P-5 Site plan goes to show that the agricultural field of PW-2 Ramdhan is nearby the place of occurrence but he has seen the occurrence has not been stated in the F.I.R., which was lodged by PW-2 Ramdhan himself. PW-2 Ramdhan has stated that deceased Durgalal was his cousin brother and in F.I.R., he has stated that drivers Buniyad and Amin are in the habit of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. This suggest that he was having prior prejudices towards the present petitioner and possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. PW-2 Ramdhan has significantly improved his statement before the trial Court and the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. 6. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact against the present petitioner that he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. PW-2 Ramdhan has significantly improved his statement before the trial Court and the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. 6. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact against the present petitioner that he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. PW-2 Ramdhan cannot be relied upon. He cannot be taken as an eye-witness and other witnesses have not stated anything to connect the present petitioner with the offence. The learned Courts below have misread the evidence. The findings are based on no evidence and perverse and are liable to be quashed.Looking at the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 19.8.1999 passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 9.7.2002 are hereby quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code The petitioner is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be set at liberty if' not required in any other case.Revision Allowed. *******