STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., dated 16.7.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 15.11.1999, at about 9.50 a.m., a statement of complainant Yuv Raj Sharma was recorded at the spot by a police officer in which he had alleged that on 15.11.1999, he alongwith his wife Suman Sharma were going on their scooter bearing No. HP -37 -2841. At about 9.30 a.m., when the scooter reached near Binwa Bridge, an HRTC bus bearing No. HP -39 -3922 came at a fast speed and tried to overtake his scooter. Resultantly, the head of his wife struck with the rear portion of the bus, who died at the spot. He alleged that he did not sustain any injuries. He also alleged that the accident had taken place at the spot due to the rash or negligent driving of the bus driver, who had run away from the spot. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent for the offences mentioned above leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the learned trial Court had only observed that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish their case and accordingly it passed the judgment of acquittal, without discussing the evidence of the complainant, which was very material and as to whether it proved the case of the prosecution or not. There is practically no discussion of the statement of the complainant, who has stated the facts and he was the main witness examined by the prosecution since he was driving the scooter, which had been, allegedly, hit by the respondent. Apart from this, the learned trial Court even did not discuss the statement of the Investigating Officer. The conclusions have been drawn by the learned trial Court and it did not give any finding as to why the statement of the complainant was not being relied upon.