State of Rajasthan vs Chutra Ram son of Mohan Ram

This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) Cr.P.C . has

been preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.12.1993 passed by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (hereinafter to be

referred as ''the trial Court'') in Original Criminal Case No.

198/1993 whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the

accused/respondent Chutra Ram for the offences punishable under

Section 279 and 304-A IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of written

report (Ex. P/1) submitted by PW-1 - Lokesh Chandra Kothari on

02.12.1992, the Police Station Phalodi has registered an FIR No.

175/1992 against an unknown person. In the written report (Ex.

P/1), PW-1 Lokesh Chandra Kothari has mentioned that his son

Ruchit Kothari studying in Class VIII has gone to school today at

about 10:00 am and at about 2:00 pm, some persons from the

colony has informed that an accident took place on the National

Highway. He along with two friends immediately reached at the

spot where he saw that his son Ruchit Kothari and his friend

Chandra Shekhar Soni are lying dead as they have been crushed

by Truck No. RRF 5641. It has also been mentioned in the

complaint that though the truck loaded with stone was standing at

the spot but the truck driver was not found on the spot.

After investigation, the Police has filed charge-sheet against

the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under

Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and the learned trial Court has also

framed charges against him for the aforesaid offences.

The prosecution has produced as many as 5 prosecution

witnesses and has also got also exhibited 27 documents to prove

the charges against the accused/respondent. The statement of

the accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

However, no evidence was produced in defence.

The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the

prosecution evidence, has acquitted the accused/respondent for

the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and for

the offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(11), 187, 139/187

of the Motor Vehicles Act . The trial Court has observed that the

accused/respondent was charged for the aforesaid offences on the

basis of Exhibit-P/18, an information supplied by the owner of the

truck wherein, he has informed that the accused/respondent was

the driver on the truck involved in the accident. The trial Court has

held that Exhibit-P/18 has not been proved by the prosecution by

producing the owner of the truck in question. The trial Court has

also held that the prosecution has failed to produce any eye-

witness of the incident, who can alleged that at the time of the

accident, the accused/respondent was driver the truck involved in

the accident. After holding this, the trial Court has held that as the

prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of accident, the

accused/respondent was driving the truck involved in the accident,

therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offences for which he

was charged.

After hearing learned counsel for the accused/respondent

and after carefully scrutinized the record of the case, this Court is

of the opinion that the only evidence available against the

accused/respondent is Exhibit-P/18, the notice given by the Police

to the owner of the truck namely, Lalluram wherein, he has

informed that on truck No. 5641 involved in the accident, the

accused/respondent was the driver. Admittedly, Lalluram, owner

of the truck has not been produced as a witness by the

prosecution and as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the

document Ex.P/18 before the trial Court. In such circumstances, I

do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the

trial Court whereby, the accused/respondent was acquitted for the

offences for which he was charged.

Hence, there is no force in this criminal appeal preferred on

behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the same is hereby

dismissed.