IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that acquittals should not be overturned without compelling reasons.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.) :

1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.05.2005, passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Crl. Regular Case No.376/2004, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence under Sections 279, 304-A IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.10.2003, complainant Khem Chand submitted a report to the effect that his brother Bishanu Das runs an ara machine in the village Kohla and his brother went to village Kohla in the morning. The complainant along with his younger brother Manohar Lal was coming to their home from Fatehgarh at about 8:15 PM, when they reached near Gali No.8, Nai Abadi at Rawatsar Road, their brother Bishanu Das crossed them riding on motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-31-M-7755. At that time a truck bearing registration No.RJ-31-G-4168 came behind Bishanu Das in a rash and negligent manner and hit him and he fell down. The truck driver fled away from the spot and during treatment Bishanu Das died in the hospital. The said truck was being driven by accused-respondent No.2. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused-respondent No.2 in the Court concerned.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused-respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused-respondent No.2, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

4. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2005 acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.

6. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.

9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-complainant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.

10. In the case of Mrinal Das & others v. The Sta