STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal appeal having been filed by the appellant-State, lays challenge to the judgment dated 31.3.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 366-11/2004/2002, whereby learned Court below held respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused'), not guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC and Ss. 191, 192-A and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly acquitted him.

(2.) In nutshell, case of the prosecution as emerges from the record is that on 31.1.1999, at about 3.45 pm, at place 78 Miles (Aberi), accused was driving truck bearing registration No. HPK-1073. It is alleged that on the date of alleged accident, complainant Manoj Kumar alongwith his cousin Satish Kumar was going to Aberi to purchase vegetables. It is alleged that the accused was driving the vehicle in question on public way in a rash and negligent manner and hit the same against Satish Kumar, who came beneath the front tyre of the vehicle. Statement of PW-5 Manoj Kumar (complainant)(Ext. PW-5/A) was got recorded and on the basis of same, FIR (Ext. PW-1/A) was registered under the aforesaid provisions of law at Police Station Palampur. After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-II, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, who, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, served notice of accusation upon him for the commission of aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed that at the time of alleged incident, he was not driving the truck in question and he has been falsely implicated. However, the fact remains that he did not lead any evidence in his defence.