1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT MAHESH KUMAR SONI VS. SHYAM LAL AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 47 of 2001 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 21, 1998 of Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh Sikar by which the accused respondent was acquitted for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304 IPC and Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Narendra Singh Hada for Mr. C.L. Saini for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Mahesh Kumar Soni against the order dated March 21, 1998 of Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh Sikar by which the accused respondent was acquitted for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304 IPC and Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Choth Mal lodged an FIR at 2 Police Station Nechva against the accused respondent who was driver of the Jeep and committed accident. Due to his rash and negligence driving one person Suresh Kumar died and the applicant Mahesh Kumar received grievous injuries. The police registered case under sections 279, 337 and 304 A IPC and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar. The prosecution produced witnesses before the Judicial Magistrate but no witness was produced by the accused in his defence. After hearing arguments the trial court acquitted the accused respondent for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304 IPC and Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide his judgment dated March 21, 1998. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the 3 accused non-petitioner for offence charged against him. The prosecution witness Mahesh Kumar PW.10 deposed that he received injuries in the accident and he is the eye witness of the incident and he gave his statement before the court in support of the prosecution but the trial court failed to consider his statement on account of the fact that the investigating officer recorded his statement after 11 days and due to this reason the trial court did not rely upon his statement. The accused respondents has been wrongly acquitted for the offences charged against him. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire 4 record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. 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. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/