S K GROVER Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against acquittal by the complainant.

(2.) The complainant is the father of the victim, a motor cyclist, who died on account of the collision between his motor cycle and the fiat car driven by the accused. The accident occurred in the City of Madras in Poonamallee High Road. Under S. 401(3) Cr. P. C. this Court does not have jurisdiction to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, but this Court has power under that section as well as under S. 482 Cr. P.C. to order a re-trial of the case when it is found that an important element of the evidence has been completely overlooked by the trial Court. This is exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled in two important decisions reported in Chinnasami L v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram 1974 Mad LJ (Cri) 168. In the present case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the basis of some discrepancies and lack of precision in the evidence of eye-witnesses. But, he has not at all considered the sketch, Ex. P. 7, drawn by the investigating officer. In the sketch, it is seen that the car driven by the accused was clearly on the right side of the road. Whether that sketch is correct, when the car was on the right side of the road, what are the conclusions to be drawn therefrom in respect of the liability of the accused, are questions which have to be dealt with, if necessary, after re-examining of the competent witnesses.

(3.) In the case of an accident, the eye-witnesses cannot give a full picture of the events prior to the accident, because they will turn their attention to the events only when they hear a noise and know that an accident has occurred. Therefore, an important element of evidence to determine the criminal liability, if any, is to find out the result of the accident, the respective places of the vehicles, the traces on the road, the damages caused to the vehicles and also the places where the victims of the accident were founded etc. All these are very valuable pieces of information wherefrom the causes of the accident, or at least the mistakes of the respective drivers, can be inferred. The oral evidence, of eye-witnesses, if any, is to be analysed and appreciated in conjunction with the above information and or any other information which would be available and which the investigating officer has been able to gather. Therefore, in the present case, the total failure of the trial Court to consider the sketch is a sufficient ground for interference and for sending back the case for retrial.