(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 4-2-2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, hamirpur in Criminal case No. 21-II of 1995 acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 304-A, IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent Dinesh Kumar on 18-4-1995 at 8. 20 a. m. at Doli Gharana on the public highway drove Jeep No. HP-22-1421 in rash or negligent manner and endangered human life and public safety. On account of his rash or negligent driving of the jeep he struck against Anu aged 4 years and caused her death. He was prosecuted under Sections 279, 304-A, IPC. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. He has contended that he has been falsely implicated in the case, no defence, evidence was led by him. The learned Chief Judicial magistrate acquitted the respondent. Hence, the State has filed the appeal.
(3.) I have heard learned Additional Advocate general for the State; Mr. Sanjeev kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. The learned additional Advocate General has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has been wrongly observed by the court below that no eye-witness of the accident has been examined. This is not a case where deceased suddently came over the road. The girl was standing outside the road where respondent struck her with the jeep. The rash or negligent driving on the part of the respondent is apparent which has been proved by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Chief Judicial magistrate has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. This Court will not substitute its view while sitting in appeal if conclusion drawn by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate is possible from the evidence on record. He has also submitted that in any case the occurrence is dated 18-4-1995, the respondent at that time was about 23 years of age, now he is settled in life and, therefore, in case this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the case against the respondent then lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence.