1. - Heard learned Public Prosecutor.

2. By way of filing criminal leave to appeal, the State Government is challenging the judgment dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.142/2010, whereby, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent Om Parakash Jat for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A IPC.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is totally erroneous because two eye witnesses PW-2 Shish Pal and PW-3 Vinod have expressly stated before the trial Court that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent accident took place, in which, one Inder Sain died on 29.03.2007. Further, it is argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but learned Magistrate while considering the question of contradiction in the statement of eye witnesses PW-2 Shish Pal and PW-3 Vinod acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him for committing offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC, but infact there is no material contradiction in the statement of both the eye witnesses. Therefore, on the basis of testimony of both the eye witnesses, the accuse