STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FAKARUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the judgment and record of the case.

(2.) The respondent has been acquitted of the offence under section 304 (A) I.P.C. after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned Magistral was right in disbelieving the ocular evidence in the light of the site plan and site go to show that the deceased was hit on the damar road as blood was found on the road. The ocular evidence is to the effect that the deceased Jagdish was hit when hi was standing near the 'gitti. This evidence does not appear to be truthful if viewed in light of site plan and site notes. The road is a National Highway. It appears the deceased was hit when he was crossing the road when the ocular evidence' incredible then there remain no evidence on record on the basis of which it can h found that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The finding record' ed by the learned Magistrate can not be said to be unreasonable and perverse. In my opinion, the order of the acquittal is not liable to be interfered within this The appeal has, therefore, no force so it is hereby dismissed. State appeal dismissed.