Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; witness credibility is essential.

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (In short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2015 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, District North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in connection with FIR No. 59/2008 at PS Vijay Vihar, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 279 /304A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (In short “IPC”).

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.11.2008 one Sudhir Maan („Complainant‟) was present at his house. On that day at about 8 p.m. his friend namely Rakesh Dabas („deceased‟) and Dilbagh (PW-10) came to him at his house. Thereafter, they all proceeded to village Karala at the house of their friend. They were going to Karala on two motorcycles. The deceased was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8SAH-5151 and Dilbagh (PW-10) was on another motorcycle with the complainant (PW-1). The deceased was driving the above said motorcycle ahead of their motorcycle. When they reached at a 100 feet road, one Tempo Traveller bearing registration no. DL-lVA- 4233 came from behind at a very high speed and struck against the motorcycle of the deceased due to which the deceased fell down alongwith the motorcycle and came under the said tempo, subsequent to which, the tempo driver namely Raj Kumar („accused‟) dragged them for some distance. The complainant (PW-1) and Dilbagh (PW-10) raised alarm but the accused did not stop his vehicle and fled away towards the side of BudhVihar. Thereafter they chased the tempo and apprehended the accused at Ganda Nala BudhVihar, Delhi. They deboarded the accused from the said tempo who was found under the influence of liquor. They gave the information to police and police officials came at Ganda Nala. Thereafter, they went to the hospital, where, the complainant identified the dead body of the deceased. It is alleged that since the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause injury to other persons, FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279 /304A of the IPC was registered against him. The Court took cognizance as a prima facie case was made out against the accused.

3. The respondent/accused pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, trial was conducted. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence and material available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, the State is in appeal.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper. According to him, the testimony of Dilbagh Singh (PW-10), categorically mentioned the circumstances, which caused the accident and also identified the accused in court, the same is more than sufficient to convict the accused. The Learned trial court further failed to appreciate and consider that the contradictions in the testimonies were minor in nature, which should not be considered as a ground for acquittal. Additionally, all the statements of the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case and there are no major contradictions in the testimony of the said witnesses. According to him, justice should not be denied for the mistakes of the investigating officer.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently opposed the submissions and submitted that the offences have not been committed by the respondent/accused and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted him. He submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has considered all the submission made by the respondent/accused, and the evidence led by