ORDER :

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order whereby juvenile – Gourav Badyal in respect of whom proceedings were initiated in respect of an FIR No. 339/2016, Police Station, Udhampur for offences under Sections 279/337/304-A RPC has been acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur (“the trial Court”) vide its judgment dated 26.06.2018 on the grounds that trial court has wrongly discarded the statement of PW-Ranjeet Singh on ground that he was an interested witness. The second ground urged before this Court to assail the judgment impugned is that the trial Court observed that the prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer due to which FIR, site map remained unexhibited and not proved, whereas a bare perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that I.O. appeared before the trial Court and was examined in support of the challan.

2. The facts in brief are that on 19.10.2016, a Scooty bearing Registration No.JK14D/5424 while going from TCP towards Salathia Chowk, Udhampur met with an accident near D.C. Office at about 5.20 p.m., as a result whereof scooty driver and the pillion rider, namely, Naresh Singh sustained grievous injuries. The injured with taken to Udhampur hospital where pillion rider succumbed to the injuries. The accident was allegedly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooty by its driver-respondent No.2 herein. The challan was presented before the trial Court on 31.01.2017, the accused was declared juvenile and his statement in terms of Section 242 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The delinquent was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 279/304-A RPC. The delinquent denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 14 witnesses out of 18 witnesses cited in the challan. No witness has been examined in defence.

3. The trial Court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence, held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the delinquent juvenile. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was dismissed and the delinquent juvenile was acquitted by the trial Court with the following observations:-

“Having observed, it is noticed that the prosecution evidence which has come on record in the present case is neither sufficient nor cogent to establish the case of the prosecution. The positive case of the prosecution is that the accused was driving his Scooty in a rash, negligent and reckless manner and in the process it overtured on the road. However, the prosecution evidence which has came on record has given different versions of the day and the manner in which the occurrence has taken place. All the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses (in relation with the deceased) except police personnel’s and PW Ram Dass. None of the prosecution witness is known to the fact regarding the colour and manufacturing company of the offending scooty. The Police employees cited as prosecution witnesses have also not supported the prosecution story and as such the statements recorded by all the prosecution witnesses are having contradictions. PW Ram Dass cited as an eye, witness, in his examination in chief stated that he has not seen how the accident and also deposed in his examination in chief that he does not know the accused present in the court. Moreover the I.O. namely Faiz Ullah has deposed in the cross-examination that he prepared the site map of occurrence as per his imagination but had not prepared it as per the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In addition to it, he had only examined the witness Ram Dass who had said nothing incriminating against the accused. The investigation of the present case is therefore both faulty and marred by a series of infirmities and a lack of sense of direction. The contradictory versions regarding the manner, in which the occurrence took place, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to throw out