Darbara Singh vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 807 j&K

                                                                       Sr. No. 202

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU


                                                    CRR 61/2012
                                                    CrlM Nos. 465/2019[1/2019]

Darbara Singh                                                     ..... Appellant (s)

                                    Through :- None

                           V/s

                                                                 .....Respondent(s)
State and ors
                                    Through :- Mrs S. Kour Sr. Advocate with
                                               Ms. Manpreet Kour Advocate.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE


                                       ORDER

1 On the last date of hearing also, there was no representation on

behalf of the petitioner and this Court in its order dated 13 th July, 2021, clearly

observed that in case the petitioner does not appear on the next date of hearing,

the matter would be considered in his absence.

2 Today when the case was called out, nobody turned up to

represent the petitioner, and therefore, the matter was considered in the absence

of the petitioner or his counsel.

3 This revision petition filed under Section 435 of Cr.PC is directed

against judgment dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st class (Munsiff), Hiranagar ['trial Court'] in file No.

61/312/challan titled 'State vs. Rashpaul Singh whereby and whereunder

respondent No.2 herein, who was accused of committing the offences under

Sections 279/337/304-A RPC, has been acquitted. The revision petitioner is 2 CRR 61/2012

father of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicular accident caused by

respondent No.2 while driving his Motor Cycle rashly and negligently.

4 Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as was presented before the

trial Court, was that on 26.12.2005, a report was received by Police Station

Rajbagh, Kathua from reliable sources that a red coloured Motor Cycle bearing

no registration number driven by respondent No.2 from Jammu towards

Kathua rashly and negligently committed the accident, as a result whereof, the

pillion rider Varinder Singh got seriously injured and died on the spot. A case

FIR No. 176/2005 was registered in the Police Station concerned and the

investigation set in motion.

5 The Investigating Officer, after completing the requisite

formalities including recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161

CrPC, presented the challan before the trial Court. With a view to prove its

case, the prosecution examined PWs Harjit Singh, Shiv Kumar, Shiv Kumar,

Suraj Parkash, Dr. Vasna, Joginder Singh, Baldev Singh, Kashmir Singh,

Mulkh Raj, Darbara Singh and Dr. Vijay Bali. On conclusion of prosecution

evidence, the statement of respondent No.2 under Section 342 CrPC was

recorded and the incriminating material, appearing in the evidence led by the

prosecution, was put to him. He refuted all the allegations and chose to adduce

defence evidence. Respondent No.2 examined DW Thora Singh as his lone

defence witness.

6 The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides and

having analyzed the evidence that had come on record, came to the conclusion

that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accident in which the deceased

Varinder Singh lost his life was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the

Motor Cycle by respondent No.2. The trial Court has, in detail, reproduced the 3 CRR 61/2012

statements of the prosecution witnesses and observed that none of the

prosecution witnesses had seen respondent No.2 driving the Motor Cycle. They

saw the accident only after they heard the sound of falling of the Motor Cycle

on the road side. The trial Court, thus, did not rely upon their versions that they

were the eye witnesses to the accident. Accordingly, the trial Court acquitted

respondent No.2.

7 The petitioner, who is father of deceased being aggrieved of the

judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, is before me in this revision

petition.

8 Having gone through the judgment of acquitted recorded by the

trial Court minutely and also the material on record, I am of the view that the

petitioner has failed to make out a case for reversal of the impugned judgment

passed by the trial Court.

9 It is true that most of the prosecution witnesses, who were

examined during the trial, have stated that they had seen the accident as it

happened in front of their shops, but none of them could state that they had

seen respondent No.2 driving the Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner.

As a matter of fact, none of the prosecution witnesses could spell out reasons

on account of which the accident occurred. All of them saw the occurrence

only when they heard the sound of falling of Motor Cycle on the road side in

which the pillion rider Varinder Singh got seriously injured and died on the

spot.

10 In view of the aforesaid, I am in agreement with the conclusion

arrived at by the trial Court that though the accident in which the pillion rider

Varinder Singh died on the spot occurred because of the accident committed by 4 CRR 61/2012

respondent No.2 while driving his Motor Cycle, but there is not even an iota of

evidence to show that respondent No.2 was driving his Motor Cycle at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The essential ingredients of the

offences alleged are altogether missing and have not been proved. On the basis

of evidence on record, the trial Court could not have taken any view other than

the one taken by it in the judgment impugned. Otherwise also, the scope of

revisional powers to interfere with the judgment of acquittal is quite limited

and the Court may not enter into re-evaluation of evidence on record, unless it

finds the same perverse or a case of no evidence.

11 For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition.

The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu 03.08.2021 Sanjeev

Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No