STATE OF H P Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has come in appeal against judgement dated 5.9.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in Criminal Case No. 51-II of 1996, acquitting the respondent of offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.1.1996 at 5.00 p.m. near Post Office, Hamirpur, while driving jeep applied for respondent hit Smt. Urmila Devi and caused serious injuries on her person. The injured was removed to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for medical aid but she could not survive and was declared dead after some time. On the statement Ex. PW 9/A of PW 9 Rattan Chand, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes under Section 154 Cr.P.C., a formal FIR was registered at Police Station, Hamirpur. The police took into possession Ex. PW 4/A OPD slip of treatment of Smt. Urmila Devi. The police got conducted post mortem on the body of Smt. Urmila Devi and took into possession the post mortem report Ex. PW 10/A. The site plan was prepared, the jeep alongwith documents was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 6/A. The mechanical report Ex. PW 3/A of the jeep was obtained, the photographs Ex. PW 7/A to Ex. PW 7/C were also taken. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court. The notice of accusation was put to respondent for committing an offence, punishable under Sections 279, 304 -A, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove the accusation, the statement of respondent was recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on conclusion of trial, acquitted the respondent, hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned Counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has misconstrued, misinterpreted the oral and documentary evidence on record. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent, and, therefore, Mr. Bansal has submitted that after setting aside the impugned judgement, the respondent may be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. There is no perversity in the impugned judgement. The view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate emerges from the evidence on record, and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgement.