IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.127 OF 2008 Manoj Saini, S/o Sri Jiya Lal R/o Village Sunhari Khurd, P.S.-Churthawal, District Muzaffarnagar. ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakahnd & another ……Respondents. Dated: July 03, 2008 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2006 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Case No.344/2006, State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted respondent no.2-Sanjeev Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.). 2. I have heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the prosecution case is that on 28.02.2004 at about 9:00 A.M. near G.T. Road, R.T.O. Check Post, Respondent no.2-Sanjeev Kumar, while driving Commander Jeep No.U.P. 701-0988, rashly and negligently, hit the motor cycle Splendor No.UP.11-J-9294, due to which cousin brother of complainant namely Jayanand Saini and his wife Vandana received serious injuries. It was also averted that the said motorcycle also badly damaged due to the said accident. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged by revisionist/complainant Manoj Saini at Police Station. Thereafter the case was investigated and after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused/respondent no.2 under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 I.P.C. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced sole witness namely, P.W.1 Jaynand Saini. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/respondent no.2 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the incident and also stated that the case was a false case and claimed to be tried. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide his judgment and order dated 8.12.2006 has acquitted the accused/respondent no.2 Sanjeev Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 8.12.2006 the revisionist/ complainant has filed the present revision before this Court. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced P.W.1 Jaynand Saini, who is the sole injured witness. This witness has supported the incident in his examination in chief. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that after the collision, he got unconscious. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he does not know that after how many days of the incident and at what time his brother Manoj Saini had come. In view of this statement given by P.W.1 Jaynand Saini, the learned trial court has rightly reached to the conclusion that P.W.1 Jaynand Saini had not informed the complainant/revisionist Manoj Saini that the accident was done by respondent no.2-Sanjeev Kumar. The trial court also rightly reached to the conclusion that the report, which was lodged by the revisionist, was on the basis of hearsay evidence because the complainant was not present at the place of occurrence. Since, the prosecution could not prove any other witness except P.W.1 Jaynand Saini, even after giving sufficient opportunity of time, the learned trial court has rightly recorded the finding that prosecution could not able to prove its case against respondent no.2 beyond reasonable doubt. As such the learned trial court has rightly acquitted respondent no.2- Sanjeev Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 I.P.C. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2006 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 8. For the reasons as recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed in-limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 03.07.2008 Rajeev Dang