1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.135/2008 (State of Raj. Vs. Mitha Ram) Date of order : 30.6.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mrs. Vidhyawati Boda, Public Prosecutor. This criminal leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.4.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirohi in Cr. Original Case No.295/04 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the non-petitioner from the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. while giving him benefit of doubt. Brief facts of the case are that a compliant was filed by one Vinod Sharma at about 11.45 p.m. on 24.10.2004 when he was in General Hospital Sirohi. Upon that compliant, FIR was registered against the non-petitioner for committing offence under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. As per the compliant, in the night of 2 24.10.2004, the complainant and one Gopendra Singh (deceased) were going on motor cycle from Sirohi to Bhinmaal. He was driving his motor cycle at that time one Tractor bearing No.RJ.24 R-3303 hit the motor cycle of Gopendra Singh while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and due to hit by Tractor deceased Gopendra Singh fell down from motor cycle and suffered serious injuries. As per complainant, he took Gopendra Singh to the Hospital but before reaching hospital, Gopendra Singh died due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is specifically stated by complainant that due to rash and negligent driving of non-petitioner, accident took place, therefore, as per the complainant the non-petitioner has committed offence under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. After registration of case, investigation was conducted and after due investigation, challan was filed. Thereafter, the trial of the case was commenced and after examination of eleven prosecution witnesses and exhibiting certain documents, the statement of accused non-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence witness was produced by the non-petitioner. The trial Court after hearing final arguments acquitted the accused non-petitioner from the charges levelled against him while observing that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and more specifically the statement of complainant, who was alleged to be eye witness. As per the statement of complainant PW-6 the occurrence took place in his back and he was not in position to even see the occurrence because he was going towards front side of the Tractor and after hearing noise he saw that injured Gopendra Singh fell down from the motor cycle. Further as per the statement of complainant Vinod Sharma, the non- petitioner was driving vehicle rashly and negligently but as per the judgment, discussions and appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court, there is no evidence on record to prove the case of the prosecution that the non-petitioner was driving vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also very important to observe here that as per the statement of complainant there was no head light upon the tractor but on the basis of mechanical report, the trial Court observed that this fact is not correct because as per the mechanical report, it is reported that there was head light upon the tractor and horn of the tractor was also functioning. Therefore, the learned trial Court has arrived at with the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it is also required to be observed that only eye witness who is 4 complainant has been produced before the trial Court to prove its case and occurrence took place on a public road, therefore, obviously, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at with the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for allegation of committing any offence. Negligence can possibly be attributed to anyone but there must be cogent evidence for proving the case before the Court. In this view of the matter, the finding of trial Court does not require any interference. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun