On 12-5-84 at about 15.00 hours Jasodabai (PW 1) was going to her work at the ^I;k* near Jawar Jod.She had a bucket in her hand.JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chauhan, J.A metador No. MBI 9072 came from the side of Metwara and after crushing Jasodabai broke down the barbed wire fencing of the road-side plantation damaged the plants and stuck in the ditch.The scene of occurrence being within the jurisdiction of Jawar P.S. in Sehore district the papers were transferrd to that P.S. by Sonkatch police.Inquest was held and post mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Riaz Hussain whose report is Ex.P-4, which is an admitted document.It is not in dispute that Jashodabai died of injuries sustained in the said accident.The respondent-accused denied his presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident though his driving license was amongst the document that were seized from the metador.Therefore he did not consider it necessary to record a finding on the other point of rash and negligent driving and acquitted the accused which has been challenged in this appeal by the State.The learned counsel for the respondent after concluding his arguments sought leave to give a list of citations the next day.Instead of a list of citations he has presented a detailed written arguments.Nor a commendable practice indeed.Shri V.N. Shukla (PW 10) the then station house officer Jawar has stated that he seized registration, fitness certificate, insurance and driving license of the vehicle involved in the accident vide seizure memo Ex.In absence of cross examination on this point the arguments that Ex.P-8 should not be held duly proved because Shri Sanjay Prabhakar from whose possession the documents are alleged to have been seized and the independent witnesses of seizure have not been examined, deserves to be rejected.There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Shri Shukla has prepared this false document.The evidence of police officer has to be judged like evidence of any other witness, on its intrinsic worth on prima facie presumption of his honesty and conscientiousness.There is no reason for presuming him to be a highly interested witness (Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 : (1956 Cri LJ 421).Ex. P. 8, therefore is not liable to be assailed as not duly proved which shows that inter alia respondent's driving license was seized from the possession of Shri Sanjay Prabhakar who was present on the spot when Shri Shukla reached there after getting unconfirmed information of the incident.In para 3 of his statement Shri Shukla has clarified that San-jay Prabhakar and Parasmal Sindhi were detained by the crowd on the spot who informed him that the driver had run away.Thus it is clear that though respondent's licence was found alongwith other documents in the possession of Sanjay Prabhakar soon after the incident the respondent himself was not present there.Sanjay Prabhakar was one of the occupants of the vehicle involved in the accident.This is proved by Ex.P-7 showing seizure of the said metador from his possession.From the particulars of Sanjay Prabhakar given in Ex.P.6 and 7 it is clear that he is resident of Nasik.This vehicle also belongs to an industrial unit of Nasik.Therefore, it is clear that Sanjay Prabhakar was one of the occupants of this vehicle.There was no other driving license amongst the papers seized.The respondent as also the vehicle do not come from the area where the accident took place.In these circumstances the fact as to how his driving license came to be amongst the documents of this vehicle in his absence being within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent he was expected to explain the same Under Section 106 of Evidence Act. No such explanation is forthcoming.There is sufficient evidence to show that the driver had run away in the statements of Murlidhar (PW 1) Babulal (PW 2) Moolchand (PW 5) and Madanlal (PW 6), therefore even if the statement of Shri Shukla that this fact was conveyed to him by Sanjay and Parasmal is to be excluded from consideration being hit Under Section 162, Cr.P.C. the fact that the driver of the vehicle managed to escape after the accident stands fully proved.Another crucial document is Ex.The arrest memorandum of respondent proved by Shri D.S. Patil (PW 9) A.S.I. police outpost Metware.He has stated that he arrested the respondent on his voluntary surrender on 21-5-84 vide Ex.P-12 at Metware Police outpost.The fact that the respondent voluntarily surrendered has been assailed on the ground that this fact was not put to him Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The criticism is misconceived.The respondent has been asked in question No. 24 that he was arrested vide Ex. P-12 and he denied the fact of such arrest.Thus it is seen that on 21-5-84 when the vehicle was to be received back from the police custody the respondent had come along with the said Begool and had surrendered before A.S.I. Shri Patil.There is no conceivable reason to doubt the varacity of Shri Patil in his behalf.The learned trial magistrate rejected this clinching evidence on the erroneous ground that Shri Patil has not disclosed what was stated by the respondent at the time of surrender.Whatever the respondent might have said being self incriminatory, would have amounted to confession and would be inadmissible in view of the bar Under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Even otherwise the evidence on the point of surrender had no linkage with what the respondent stated before the police at the time of surrender and therefore the abovesaid reason for rejecting the said evidence is wholly untenable.But in this case as shown above the discrepant ocaular evidence notwithstanding the facts and circumstances proved, leave no reasonable doubt that the metador being driven by the respondent.Appreciation of evidence is a difficult art and demands a meticulous analytic eye capable of seeing the parts as also the whole picture in one simultaneous process in absence whereof the most likely casualty in justice.From the evidence of Murlidhar (PW 1) husband of the deceased, Babulal (PW 2), Moolchand (PW 5) and Madanlal (PW 6) the picture that emerges is that deceased Jasoda was going with the bucket in her hand to fetch water.She was on her left side of the road.The metador in question came at a high speed from the side of Motwara and after hitting Jasoda went off the road breaking down the fencing of road-side plantation and got stuck up in the ditch.In result the appeal succeeds.

Relevant sections: Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code