AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant complainant and
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned
judgment.
By way of this application for leave to appeal preferred under
Section 378 read with Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C ., the applicant craves
leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
10.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge,
Sujangarh in Appeal No.18/2015 whereby, the appellate court
allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 Nauratanmal and
quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction dated
15.04.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh
in Criminal Case No.89/2011 whereby, the respondent was
convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
After appreciating the arguments advanced at bar and after
going through the impugned judgment and record, I find no
reason or justification for granting leave to the applicant
complainant to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of
acquittal.
The accident is alleged to have occurred on 07.06.2011 in
which, Ankit aged 22 years, who was driving the motorcycle
No.RJ-14-37M-5284 was hit by a Maruti Van No.RJ-10-TA-0506
resulting into injuries being caused to him leading to his death.
The FIR of the incident was lodged by Laxmipat, uncle of the
deceased. In the said FIR, the name of driver of the offending
vehicle is not mentioned. The I.O. gave notice under Section 133
of the M.V. Act to the registered owner of the vehicle namely Shri
Jagdish Prasad on 10.06.2011 who allegedly replied to the notice
mentioning that his younger brother Nauratanmal (the respondent
accused) was driving the Maruti Van on the fateful day. However,
the said Jagdish Prasad did not support the prosecution story at
the trial and was declared hostile. He denied giving reply to the
notice given by the I.O. under Section 133 of the M.V. Act. The
witness Omprakash (PW-9) claimed to be an eye-witness of the
incident, however, his statement was recorded by the I.O. on
20.06.2011 i.e. after 13 days of the incident. The appellate court
further noticed that the said Omprakash claimed that he had
informed Laxmipat of the entire details of the incident including
the name of driver of the offending vehicle. However, this fact was
importantly missing in the written report (Ex.P/18) submitted by
Laxmipat at the Police Station Chhapar.
In view of the above, this Court expresses concurrence with
the findings recorded by the trial court that the prosecution failed
to prove identity of the driver of the offending vehicle by leading
cogent evidence.
In this background, I am not inclined to grant leave to the
applicant for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment of
acquittal dated 10.08.2016 and thus, the instant application for
grant of leave to file appeal is hereby rejected as devoid of any
merit.
Record be returned to the trial court.