PREMSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment of leaned Sessions Judge, Alwar who confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 304A I.P.C. The learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Behror vide his judgment dated 29th September, 1976 bad convicted the accused -petitioner under Section 304A. I.P.C. and had sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a one of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. The facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) UNDER Police Station Mandal, District Alwar on November 27, 1972, at about 5P.M. work was in progress on National Highway near Sanjahanpur. The deceased Ganga wife of Dhanna was one of the labourer working on the road and she was knocked down by Truck No. RJC 903 which was being driven by the accused petitioner. She died as a result of the injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by Bhupendra Kumar Overseer and a case No. 69/72 under Section 304. I.P.C. was registered in the police station Mandal. After the usual investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused -petitioner and the learned Magistrate after trial convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) IN the instant case there were two sets of witnesses, the first set consists of Bheruram PW. 4 and Loonanm PW. 5, the other set consists of Mukunlal PW. 6, Adduram PW. 7 and Pukhraj PW. 8. The two courts below have placed reliance on the first set of witnesses and so far as the second set of witnesses is concerned it has been been observed by the two courts that these witnesses were not reliable and won over. A perusual of the statements of second set of witnesses will show that they were neither declared hostile nor permission was sought to cross examine them by the prosecutor who conducted the prosecution in the court. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court will show that no reasons have been assigned as to why the trial court reached the conclusion that the witnesses have been won over. All that has been observed by the learned trial court is 'I have gone through their statements with care and caution. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case I have come to the conclusion that these three witnesses have been won over by the accused, and, therefore, their testimonies cannot be said to reliable. The learned Sessions Judge has agreed with this approach of the learned trial court. But in the absence of a request by the Public Prosecutor conducting the prosecution in the trial court to permit him to put leading questions and in the absence of circumstances in the statements themselves which could lead to the conclusion that these witnesses have been won over, the learned trial court as well as the Sessions Judge were not justified in discarding the testimony of second set of witnesses by simply observing that they appear to have been won over by the accused. It may be observed that where in a case there are two sets of witnesses one favouring the accused and the other supporting the prosecution case, that set which favours the accused should be preferred at and rate in such circumstances there is sops for saying that the guilt is not brought home the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.