Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2500 (RAJ)

Ramkishan v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-14

SABINA

body2017
ORDER : Sabina, J. Petitioner had faced trial in F.I.R. no. 39/1999 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 279, 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'). 2. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 30.6.2003, ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279, 304A I.P.C. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 20.1.2005. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish its case. In-fact, as per the FIR, vehicle-in-question was being driven by Raju S/o Krishanram whereas, at a later stage, petitioner was falsely involved in this case. Eye-witnesses had failed to identify the petitioner as the person who was driving the vehicle-in-question at the time of the accident. Learned state counsel, has opposed the petition. 4. Present case relates to the death of Archana aged about five years in the road side accident. As per the FIR, the offending vehicle was being driven by Raju S/o Krishanram. However, challan was presented against the petitioner Ramkishan. 5. So far as complainant Phoolchand is concerned, he appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and has stated that he had not witnessed the occurrence and had given the name of the driver in the FIR as disclosed to him. PW-3 Babulal deposed in his cross-examination that he had not witnessed the accident and had failed to identify the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle-in-question. PW-4 Radheyshyam also deposed that he could not identify the driver who was driving the offending vehicle. He had reached the spot after the accident. He did not know whose tractor was involved in the accident. PW-6 Lalchand deposed in his cross-examination that he could not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. He could not tell as to who was at fault at the time of accident. PW-7 Ramesh in his cross-examination deposed that when he reached the spot, driver of the vehicle had already left. He was not present at the spot when the accident took place. He had not seen as to whether the accident had been caused by the petitioner or by some other person. PW-8 Sujaram did not support the prosecution case during trial. He was not present at the spot when the accident took place. He had not seen as to whether the accident had been caused by the petitioner or by some other person. PW-8 Sujaram did not support the prosecution case during trial. PW-9 Bhairu deposed that he was the registered owner of the vehicle-in-question and the same was being driven by his driver Raju. PW-11 Mohrilal deposed in his cross-examination that he could not identify the accused. 6. Thus, in the present case, material witnesses had failed to identify the petitioner as the person who was driving the vehicle-in-question at the time of the accident. It is settled preposition of law that the prosecution is required to establish its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the present case, prosecution had failed to establish that the vehicle-in-question was being driven by the petitioner at the time of the accident as witnesses examined by the prosecution had failed to identify the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. 7. In the facts of the present case, the courts below have erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279, 304A I.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Consequently, judgments/orders of the courts below are set aside.