The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the lack of sufficient evidence can lead to the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged his conviction under Section 279 and Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In T.R. No. 97 of 2014, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to S.I. for three months under section 279 IPC and S.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- under section 304A IPC.

3. He has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014 which was dismissed by judgment dated 03.07.2014, however, the learned appellate court has reduced the sentence under section 304A IPC from S.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- to S.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of father of the victim, a First Information Report was lodged against driver of the pick-up van bearing no. JH-06C-0903 under section 279 and section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and he has faced the trial on the aforesaid charges. During the trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses; the father of the victim has been examined as PW-2. The prosecution witness Govardhan Laguri PW-3 has claimed that he was with Debu Laguri when he was hit by the pick-up van which was driven by the petitioner. On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under section 279 and section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal with the aforesaid modification.

5. A glance at testimony of PW-3 would reveal that in his examination-in-chief, he has claimed that he has seen the occurrence. At the time of the occurrence he was with Debu Laguri when he was hit by the pick-up van which was driven by the petitioner-Pratap Tubid and after the occurrence he fled away. He had accompanied the victim to the hospital, however, the victim succumbed to the injuries. During his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that at the time of the incident he was at home and on hearing about the incident he has gone to the place of occurrence. He has further stated that he has not seen the occurrence.

6. Admittedly, except PW-3 there is no other witness who has claimed himself as an eye-witness. PW-2, who is father of the deceased, was not present at the place of occurrence and PW-4 has stated that he came to know about the incident from his wife. Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh PW-1, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has opined that death was caused due to head injury and the investigating officer has obtained report on the vehicle which was involved in the occurrence, however, on such evidence a presumption cannot be raised against the petitioner that at the time of the occurrence he was the one who was driving the pick-up van bearing no. JH-06C-0903.

7. In the aforesaid state of evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 279 and section 304A IPC against the petitioner and, accordingly, his conviction in T.R. No. 97 of 2014 for the aforesaid offences is set-aside. Consequently, the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014 is also set-aside.

8. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in T.R. No. 97 of 2014. He is on bail and, therefore, he shall stand discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by this Court.

9. In the result, Cr. Rev. No. 49 of 2015 is allowed.

10. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.