STATE Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused Hari Singh for offence under Sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code in case FIR No.291/97 registered at Police Station HN Din under Sections 279/338/304A of IPC, the present appeal under Section 378(1) has been preferred by the State.

(2.) The prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 13.05.1997, Ismael (PW1) along with his father Mr. Habibullah was going to RML Hospital in TSR No.DL 1RB 1558 driven by Anoop Mehto. At about 7 am, when the TSR reached the crossing of Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg and Subaramanium Marg and was crossing the road on green signal, one truck bearing registration number HR 38B 5169, being driven by the respondent/accused came from the zoo side at a very fast speed and hit the TSR as a result of which Ismael was thrown out of TSR while driver of TSR and Habibullah got stuck beneath the TSR. The truck driver could not control the truck and after hitting the TSR, it hit the central verge and overturned. Constable Jaipal, who was present at the spot, apprehended the respondent/accused and informed the PCR which reached at the spot. The injured were rushed to the hospital. One of the injured had died on the spot while other injured was declared dead in the hospital. PW1 Ismael also sustained injuries. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent accused.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined ten witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he admitted the factum of driving the truck bearing number HR 38B 5169 on the fateful day at the relevant time. However, it was pleaded by him that he was not rash and negligent. The speed of his truck was around 20 to 25 km per hour. All of a sudden a TSR hit his truck from left side, as a result of which the TSR driver and one other person died in the accident while one person was injured in the accident. He, however, did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.12.2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused/ respondent primarily on the ground that no witness has been examined by prosecution to prove the factum of negligence and rashness on the part of the accused.