O.P.BISHNOI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the Judgment dated 23 -2 -1991 delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara whereby the respondent Ganpat Singh was acquitted of the charges under Sections 338 and 304 -A of the IPC.
(2.) THE accident took place on 9 -3 -1979 between 6 to 7 p.m. at Banswara -Gadi Road, when the Truck No. MRB -863 driven by the accused respondent Ganpat Singh collided with the Jeep bearing No. GJM -7209. The injured were carried to the hospital at Partapur. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Partapur sent a message to the Police Station Gadi about the accident. A case under Sections 279 and 338 was registered. One of the injured succumbed to the injuries and accordingly the challan was filed in the said court. The accused respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges. PW -5 Jehara, PW -6 Tahira, PW -7 Rubab and PW -8 Duraiya (all ladies) were examined as eye -witnesses, who allegedly were travelling in the jeep at the time of accident. The learned trial court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment which resulted into the acquittal of the respondent. The State has come in appeal. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same requires to be dismissed. The four eye -witnesses were travelling inside the Jeep and it has come in their testimony that they are not aware of the speed of the truck because they were inside the jeep. PW -6 Tahira has admitted in her cross -examination that at the time of the accident the Truck was on its correct side. Similarly, Rubab Bai and Duraiya have admitted that the truck was on its left side. PW -5 Jora Bai's testimony is self -contradictory. In the examination -in -chief she states that after seeing the Truck coming from the front side the Jeep was taken down the road on the left side. In cross examination she admits that the Jeep was very much oh the road at the time of accident. It is thus, proved that the accident did take place but it is not proved that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the Truck driver. The learned trial court has found the Site Report Ex. P/3 and the Site Map Ex. P/5 unsatisfactory. He has suspected that the position of the Jeep and the Truck, allegedly found and recorded in Ex. P/3 and Ex.P/5 do not conform to the prosecution evidence. I find no reason to differ with the learned trial court. PW -3 Kachra's testimony is significant in this respect. He is the witness who lives nearby and reached on the spot prior to the police. He has stated that the truck was on the road after the accident. However, in Ex. P/3 and Ex.P/5 the truck is shown very much away from the road and down side. This goes to show that the position of the truck was changed subsequent to the accident.
(3.) THE two vehicles were allegedly mechanically examined and according to the Investigating Officer the examination reports Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8 were prepared. However, these documents are not proved because the Mechanical Examiner or the MTO, who allegedly examined the vehicles, has not been examined as a witness. The accident took place on 9 -3 -1979. The examination was conducted after four days on 13 -3 -1979. 7. Be that as it may, there is no material on record to accept this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;