JUDGMENT

P.N.S. Chouhan, J. On 12.5.1984 at about 15.00 hours Jasodabai (P.W. 1) was going to her work at the 'pyaoo' near Jawar Jod. She had a bucket in her hand. A Metador No. MBI 9072 came from the side of Metwara and after crushing Josodabai broke down the barled wire fencing of the road-side plantation damaged the plants and stuck in the ditch. The incident was reported in P.S. Sonkatch by Murlidas at 16.30 hours, the same day vide F.I.R. Ex. P-1. He had taken Jasodabai also in another Metador to Sonkatch P.S. She was removed to Dewas and then to M.Y. Hospital, Indore where sire succumbed to her injuries on 14.5.1984. The scene of occurrence being within the jurisdiction of Jawar P.S. in Sehore District, the papers were transferred to that P.S. by Sonkatch police. Inquest was held and post mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Riaz Hussain whose report is Ex. P-4, which is an admitted document. It is not in dispute that Jashodabai died of injuries sustained in the said accident. The respondent, accused denied his presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident though his driving licence was amongst the documents that were seized from the metador. He also denied his arrest vide Ex. P.12. On 21.5.1983 the respondent was arrested by A.S.I. Shri D.S. Patil (P.W. 9) at Metwara outpost vide memorandum. Ex. P-12.

2. The learned trial Magistrate held that the vehicle in question was being driven by the accused at the pertinent time could not be proved. Therefore, he did not consider it necessary to record a finding on the other point of rash and negligent driving and acquitted the accused which has been challenged in this appeal by the State:

3. The learned counsel for the respondent after concluding his arguments sought leave to give a list of citations the next day. Instead of a list of citations he has presented detailed written arguments. Not a commendable practice indeed.

4. Shri V.N. Shukla (P.W. 10), the then Station House Officer, Jawar has stated that he seized registration, fitness certificate, insurance and driving license of the vehicle involved in the accident vide seizure memo Ex. P-8. In absence of cross examination on this point the argument that Ex. P-8 should not be held duly proved because Shri Sanjay Prabhakar from whose possession the documents are alleged to have been seized and the independent witnesses of seizure have not been examined, deserves to be rejected. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Shri Shukla has prepared this false' document. The evidence of police officer has to be judged like evidence of any other witness, on its intfinsic worth on prima facie presumption of his honesty and conscientiousness. There is no reason for presuming him to be a highly interested witness (Khima v. State of Saurashtral). Ex. P.8, therefore, is not liable to be assailed as not duly proved which shows that inter alia Respondent's driving license was seized from the possession of Shri Sanjay Prabhakar who was present on the spot when Shri Shukla reached there after getting unconfirmed information of the incident In para 3 of his statement Shri Shukla has clarified that Sanjay Prabhakar and Parasmal Sindhi were detained by the crowd on the spot who informed him that the driver had run away. Thus it is clear that though respondent's licence was found along with other documents in the possession of Sanjay Prabhakar soon after the incident the respondent himself was not present there. Sanjay Prabhakar was one of the occupants of the vehicle involved in the accident. This is proved by Ex. P-7 showing seizure of the said metador from his possession. From the particulars of Sanjay Prabhakar given in Ex. P.6 and 7, it is clear that he is resident of Nasik. This vehicle also belongs to an industrial unit of Nasik. Therefore, it is clear that Sanjay Prabhakar was one of the occupants of this vehicle. There was no other driving license amongst the papers seized. The respondent as also the vehicle do not com