1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. KAILASH CHAND. SB Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2007 under Section 378 (i) & (iii) Cr.P.C. against the order dated May 4, 2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Beawar in Criminal Case No. 798 of 2001 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted for the offence under sections 279, 304 A IPC and section 134/ 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Date of Order : April 30, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the appellant State of Rajasthan. Mr. Dhiraj Tripathi for the accused respondent. BY THE COURT : State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated May 4, 2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Beawar in Criminal Case No. 798 of 2001 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted for the offence under sections 279, 304 A IPC and section 134/ 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on June 13, 1997 the accused respondent while 2 driving Truck No.HR 13 0277 crushed cyclist near Babal Hotel on Balad Road Crossing on Beawar Bypasas. The report about this incident was lodged by Brijlal at Police Station Beawar Sadar. On this report the police registered case No. 202/97 for the offence under sections 279 and 304 A IPC against the accused respondent. The trial court after appearance by the accused respondent framed charge under sections 279 and 304 A IPC and he denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 5 witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of accused respodnent under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides the trial court vide judgment dated May 4, 2005 acquitted the accused respondent by giving him benefit of doubt for the offences charged against him. Against this order of acquittal the State preferred leave to appeal and after leave was granted the same was registered as 3 appeal and hence this appeal. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner. The informant PW.4 Brijlal was declared hostile. Only one witness PW.3 only stated that he has seen three persons in the truck. The trial court held that who was driving the truck was not known and hence given the benefit of doubt to the accused respondent. Only on the basis that who was driving the vehicle the trial court should not have acquitted the accused respondent. Thus the judgment of the trial court should be set aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the offence charged against him. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent, contended that the trial court has considered each and every aspect of the case and nothing 4 remains more to be considered by this court in appeal. The trial court rightly given the benefit of doubt looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. For these reasons the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed after confirming the judgment dated May 4, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial 5 Magistrate N 6.o.1 Beawar. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/