Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jhujhar Singh

2015-04-09

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant Criminal Leave to Appeal has been filed by the State Government under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 8.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur District-Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 169/2005 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, an F.I.R. was registered against the accused-respondent at Police Station Keshrisinghpur on 7.4.2013 upon oral statement made by complainant/PW-10/Narvail Singh in which allegation was leveled by him that on 6.4.2013 his father late Shri Kashmir Singh went on by cycle to purchase oil from barrel point and when his father reached on the road from Dhanoor, at about 7.00 P.M., a bus came from the side of Keshrisinghpur in high speed and his father was hit by the said bus which was driven by the respondent Jhujhar Singh in rash and negligent manner and due to hit, his father fell down and ultimately died. 3. After receiving such information, the S.H.O. P.S. Keshrisinghpur registered a case under Sections 279 and 304A i.P.C. and commence investigation. 4. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed challan against the respondent Jhujhar Singh in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrikaranpur District-Sriganganagar. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondent under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. and commence the trial. 5. In the trial, the statement of as many as ten witnesses were recorded but all the eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. The learned Trial Judge after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses proceeded to record statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter an opportunity was given to the accused-respondent to lead his evidence in defence but no oral evidence was produced by the accused-respondent. 6. The learned Trial Judge after hearing arguments of both the parties acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges levelled against him vide Judgment dated 8.10.2013. 7. 6. The learned Trial Judge after hearing arguments of both the parties acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges levelled against him vide Judgment dated 8.10.2013. 7. In this Leave to Appeal filed by the State Government, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently pressed arguments that it is a case in which although all the eye-witnesses turned hostile but PW-10-Narwail Singh (son of the deceased) supported the story of the prosecution but the learned Trial Judge only on the basis of unwarranted facts disbelieved the testimony of the said witness and acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges levelled against him. In fact, PW-10-Narwail Singh was present at the time of occurrence took place, therefore, it cannot be said that his presence was doubtful and F.I.R. filed by him is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the findings given by the learned Trial Judge is totally perverse and contrary to the basis principles of law. The learned Public Prosecutor further argues that it is a case in which although, the eye-witnesses turned hostile but other witnesses of Investigating Agency as well as PW-10-Narwail Singh who is the son of the deceased was supported the prosecution story and thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed while granting Leave to Appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently argued that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but here in this case, all the eye-witnesses of the prosecution turned hostile except the PW-10-Narwail Singh who is the son of the deceased Kashmir Singh and the learned Trial Court while considering the testimony of PW-10 held that there is major contradiction in his examination in chief as well as in his cross-examination, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment impugned. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, I have perused the entire evidence as well as the finding given by the Trial Court in the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2013. In my opinion, there is strength in the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, all the eyewitnesses has turned hostile except PW-10-Narwail Singh S/o deceased Kashmir Singh. In my opinion, there is strength in the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, all the eyewitnesses has turned hostile except PW-10-Narwail Singh S/o deceased Kashmir Singh. Upon perusal of the F.I.R. registered on the basis of oral statement made by PW-10-Narwail Singh, it is obvious that no bus number was disclosed by him before the S.H.O. concerned in the report made at Police Station. Further the statement recorded in the Court, it is categorically stated by him that he was not knowing the name of the driver Jhujhar Singh but came to know from the passengers who were sitting in the bux. Meaning thereby, at the time of occurrence took place, either the PW-10-Narwail Singh was not present or he was not knowing the name of the driver i.e. respondent Jhujhar Singh but in the F.I.R., he has categorically stated the name of the accused-respondent Jhujhar Singh that he was driving the said but and on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent, his father died. The Trial Court after considering the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and material available on record held that there is material contradiction in the statement of PW-10 and gave the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In my opinion, the finding given by the Trial Court does not require any interference because all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile and there are major contradictions in the statement of PW-10-Narwail Singh, therefore, no case is made out to grant Leave to Appeal. Hence, the criminal Leave to Appeal filed by the State Government is hereby dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******