STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State and the complainant are aggrieved by the judgment dt. 18.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bhilwara whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused - respondent, Kanhaiyalal, for offences under Secs. 286, 304A IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 ('the Act', for short). The brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2005, Ajeet Singh (P.W. 4) registered a written report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station Banera. He claimed that his younger brother, Kan Singh and his sister -in -law. Pinky Kanwar, were travelling in a jeep to Musadevji. On the way, there was an explosion in the jeep, due to which, his brother died on the spot, and Smt. Pinky was gravely injured. He further alleged that Kanhaiyalal, the owner of the jeep, had placed the explosive substances in the jeep. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 225/2005 was chalked out for offences under Secs. 286, 304 -A IPC and for offences under Secs. 4 & 5 of the Act.

(2.) IN order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined thirty -four witness and submitted number of documents. In defence two witnesses were examined.

(3.) MR . Mahipal Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to Momin Khan (P.W.2), Ganga Singh (P.W.5), Kamlesh (P.W.8), Laxman (P.W.9), Bheru Bharti (P.W.10), Vijay Singh (P.W.11), Kailash Bharti (P.W.12), Smt. Nosar (P.W.13), Sher Singh Rathore (P.W.14), and Smt. Chand Kanwar (P.W.18), the said jeep had suffered an explosive. Due to the said explosion, three persons had expired. Their testimonies are further corroborated by the Inspection Report (Ex.P/32) and by the testimony of Satyendra Singh (P.W.29). Despite these overwhelming evidence, the learned Judge has erroneously acquitted the accused - respondent.