SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 12. 8. 1997 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dosa District Dosa in Criminal Case No. 56/94 by which the accused respondent was acquitted for the offence under Sections 379, 304 (A) IPC and Sections 132/157, 134/159 Motor Vehicle Act.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on dated 16. 2. 94 complainant Girdhari Lal has lodged a written report in police station Nangal Rajawatan in which he stated that his daughter Gulab get down from the bus on the Kothi of Joshiji. At about 4. 30 PM, a Roadways bus No. RJ-14-2875 is coming towards from Lalsot. THE driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit to his daughter who was standing on the road side. THE accused respondent was driving the vehicle. Upon the said report police registered a case for the offence indicated hereinabove and after investigation filed the challan before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dosa District, Dosa. The charge was framed against the accused respondent for the offence indicated hereinabove. He refused for the same and demanded for the trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondent was also recorded u/sec. 313 C. P. C. including one defence witness Motilal. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dosa, District Dosa by his order dated 12. 8. 1997 acquitted the accused respondent from the offence indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 12. 8. 1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dosa District Dosa, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor Mr. B. N. Sandu has urged to this Court the learned trial Court has not proved the statement of the prosecution witnesses properly he has drawing the attention of this Court statement of the PW. 2 Harbai, PW. 5 Nandkishore, PW. 8 Birdichand and PW. 9 Narian who are the eye-witnesses of the incident and they have supported the prosecution story. He has further contended that the death of Mst. Gulab was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, Roadways vehicle No. R. J. 14 P-2875. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kashyap who is appearing on behalf of accused respondent has contended that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter the accused respondent was acquitted. He has further drawn the attention of this Court PW. 1 Girdhari who was not present at the time of incident. He has told in his statement that he was informed by PW. 9 Narain but the PW. 9 Narain did not say in his statement that he has told about the incident to Girdhari. Pw. 2 Harbai who is not given his explanation before the Court how she knows the accused respondent. Pw. 4 Babulal who is the witness for occurrence but he has not certified the same. Pw. 6 Kailashchandra has also not given his statement in favour of the prosecution. ;