STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAMALBHAI RAHEMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar [hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Magistrate'], dated 7/6/1996 in Criminal Case No. 1791 of 1991, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'Cr. P.C.'].

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 14/5/1991 at about 8.30 a.m., the respondent driver, driving the truck bearing registration no. GTS 8633, rashly and negligently, dashed his truck with minor Vijay and in the accident minor Vijay succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. In this connection, one Balabhai Punabhai lodged FIR before police and after the completion of the investigation, the police filed charge -sheet against the respondent accused in the Court of the learned Magistrate. The respondent accused did not plead guilty and, therefore, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined complainant Bala Puna at Exh. 6, Panch Savjibhai Bhikhabhai at exh. 8 and witnesses Vasantben Naranbhai, Dipak Jamnadas, Kanubha Bachubha, Samantbhai Ranabhai and Dr. Kantibhai Shankarbhai at exhs. 17, 20, 21, 22 and 26 respectively. No more witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The prosecution produced relevant documentary evidence like FIR, panchnama of scene of occurrence, inquest panchnama and PM report, on record. After the conclusion of the evidence, the learned Magistrate recorded further statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr. P.C., wherein the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution including the fact that at the time of accident, he was driving the truck. After hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Magistrate delivered the impugned judgment and order whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent accused. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order delivered by the learned Magistrate, the State of Gujarat preferred this appeal.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant State, learned APP Mr. Mengde submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence on record. Admittedly the deceased was minor and, therefore, it was the incumbent duty on the part of the driver of a heavy vehicle like truck, to drive his truck in such a manner that he can avoid the accident under any eventuality. That as per the evidence on record, the only eye witness available at the time of accident was mother of deceased Vijay named Vasantben. That Vasantben, in her deposition, narrated the facts regarding the accident and considering her deposition as a whole, it clearly transpires that the accused was solely responsible for causing the accident and he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. That considering the panchnama of scene of occurrence, it clearly transpires that wheel marks showing application of brake by the driver of the truck extended about 12 ft., in length on the road. This fact, coupled with the fact that the vehicle was involved in the accident, was heavy vehicle like truck, discloses the fact that the accused must be driving his truck with full speed. Thus, the learned Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. That therefore, this is a fit case that this appellate Court should interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the respondent accused be punished in accordance with law.