NUTAN TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Ss. 397 and 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeks the following prayers:-

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court did not appreciate the fact that the complainant in the present case who is stated to be the eye-witness, namely Tej Bahadur was never examined. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner the fact of rash and negligent driving by act was never proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that Dinesh Kumar (PW-11), who had taken the photographs has also resiled from his statement and denied the fact that he had taken any photographs of the spot at the instance of the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that various discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-9 (ASI Mohd. Rajiq) and PW- 5 (Ct. Ashok Kumar) as well as PW-3 (ASI Rajinder Singh) were not appreciated by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.