SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8. 1. 2001 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 348/96 by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Satyapal Singh, ASI on 13. 7. 1996 lodged an FIR No. 404/96 at police station Kotputali in which he has stated that on that day at about 2. 30 PM, he has received an information from the Medical Jurist that an accident happened in Paniyala village and the injured has taken into hospital. Upon the said information, the ASI proceeded at the spot where he found Maruti RHP 88 and RJ 14g 3950. Driver of Maruti on his seat, one other person and one lady were found in dead condition. Upon the basis of the said incident, a case was registered against the accused respondent for the offence u/s. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC. After investigation the police has filed challan against the accused-respondent before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali and the learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 2 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Anil Jain appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after appreciating the prosecution witnesses the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. He has further contended that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution side and no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in this appeal. He has also contended the accused respondent is facing mental agony and trial from last 11 years which is tantamount to punishment. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 8. 1. 2001 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent.
(3.) LOOKING to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which who has been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below. " It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8. 1. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur. . ;