Acquittal under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC upheld for unproven accused identity, eyewitness contradictions, absent rash driving proof, non-examined key witnesses, and victims' alcohol influence indicating prosecution failure beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to impugned judgment dated 24.02.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Challan No.35-II/06 under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code, whereby learned Court below acquitted the respondent- accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) for his having allegedly committed the offence punishable under , 337 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant/State, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, is that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, findings contrary to the record have come to the fore. While making this Court peruse statement of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda, Mr. Chauhan, submitted that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the accused, who otherwise after having hit the scooter on which the complainant and the deceased were travelling, fled away from the spot. He further submitted that prosecution also proved factum of the death of the deceased on account of his having suffered multiple injuries after being hit by the scooter being driven by the accused, but yet learned trial Court despite there being cogent and convincing evidence, proceeded to acquit the accused.

3. To the contrary, Mr. Sat Parkash, learned counsel for the accused, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal, vehemently argued that no case much less case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while acquitting the accused. While referring to the statement of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda, which has been heavily relied upon by learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sat Parkash, submitted that version put forth by the afore witness rightly came to be discarded on account of its being untrustworthy. He submitted that if the statement of this witness is read in its entirety, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while returning the finding that there are major contradictions in the statement of afore witness. He submitted that this witness deposed falsely before the Court because bare perusal of rapat No.21 Ext.PW5/A, which was proved by PW-5 SI Jagdish Ram, clearly reveals that afore witness was never present at the time of accident, but yet prosecution, with a view to prove its case, introduced afore witness, who at one point of time, stated that complainant as well as deceased had asked him to join them for dinner at Ambari, but in the same breath, he submitted that at the time of accident, he was standing outside the dhaba. Mr. Sat Parkash, further submitted that most relevant witness i.e. owner of the dhaba as well as servant working in his dhaba, who allegedly had taken deceased to the hospital never came to be examined. He submitted that neither complainant nor Surinder @ Chhinda stated anything specific with regard to rash and negligent driving of the accused. He submitted that once very presence of the accused is doubtful, coupled with the fact that it has specifically come on record that complainant as well as deceased were under the infl