IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. (1) D. B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.134/2008 (THE STATE OF RAJASTAN VS MAJID KHAN) (2) D. B. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.302/2008 (MOHD. AYUB VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTAN) DATE : 26th August, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. V.R.Mehta, P.P. for the State. Mr. Pradeep Shah for the complainant = = = = Respondent Majid Khan charged for the offences of Ss. 302, 307, 325 and 120B IPC, after trial was acquitted vide judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed by Additional Distt & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 44/2007. Aggrieved by the above acquittal, the State has preferred Leave to Appeal No. 134/2008 and complainant Mohd. Ayub has preferred revision No. 302/08. Both these are being disposed of by this common order. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is positive evidence of one of injured PW/2 Asif to the effect that he alongwith his brother-in-law deceased Abdul Majid were going on motor-cycle and with intention of killing them, respondent no.2 driving a white Marshal vehicle RJ-27 TA 182 hit them from behind. There is no reason to disbelieve this 1 witness PW/2 who is injured and knew the respondent Majid Khan well by whom the vehicle was driven. In FIR Ex.P/1 also, it is clearly stated that respondent came on wrong side with intention of killing as above. PW/6 Ayub Khan and PW/7 Rafiq Mohd. supports the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant contended that positive testimony is there to the effect that vehicle driven by Majid Khan was following them with intention of killing – motor-cycle was chased – no reason to disbelieve evidence of PW/2 Asif supported by other evidence and on examination, it was found that the Marshal vehicle had dents on its left bumper and mudguard and pieces of broken plastic whereas, back light indicator of motor-cycle was found broken. Heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the petitioner complainant and perused the record and FIR Ex.P/1 lodged by father of injured Asif. The charge is that on December 18th 2006 at about 4:00 PM, respondent Majid Khan driving vehicle RJ-27 TA 182 and with intention to kill Asif and Abdul Majid, hit the vehicle from behind causing injuries to Asif and resulting in death of Abdul Majid. The father of the injured Asif has not named the respondent in the FIR. The incident is of 4:00 PM, the FIR lodged at 11:00 PM though it appears that father of PW/1 Asif soon after the incident received information. Further, injured Asif Khan seems to have mentioned name of respondent Majid Khan to his father prior to lodging of FIR – Asif Khan has sustained fracture of leg and there is absolutely nothing to suggest 2 that he was unable to name the concerned. Several other factors and circumstances also are there as mentioned in the judgment of trial court. Name of respondent Majid Khan is not mentioned in the FIR either as driver or as being in the vehicle. Learned Sessions Judge has well taken into account all these facts and reasons for acquittal. Accordingly, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. The revision petition is also not entertained and is dismissed. (C.M. TOTLA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. bjsh 3