STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Almost a decade after, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on Wednesday acquitted an accused facing trial in a 2011 accident case as prosecution has failed to bring home charges against accused for offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of RPC. The judgment was announced by the CJM Jammu on Wednesday, in a case titled State through Police Station Bus Stand, Jammu V/s Ram Krishan, son of Baldev Ram, resident of village Gattila Gajansoo, Tehsil and District Jammu.
The Court observed that prosecution has failed to bring home charges against accused for offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of RPC by leading cogent and trustworthy evidence. Suspicion, ever strong and grave, cannot take the place of proof and Challan hence, is therefore dismissed. The court, however, acquitted the accused from offences under sections: 279, 337 and 304-A of RPC. In case FIR No.: 54/2011 registered at Police Station Bus Stand and also discharged from his bail and surety bonds.
Kuldeep Kumar was APP for State (Accused in person) and Ashok Beotra was Advocate for accused. The Court also directed that seized property if any be released absolutely in favour of real owner/owners thereof after appeal time is over and be consigned to records after due compilation.
During investigation, it was found that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of bus by accused on September 7, 2011 from Rotary Chowk towards Bikram Chowk. Investigation further unveiled that bus belonged to KC Public School, Jammu. On the conclusion of investigation, the accused was found involved in the commission of offences under sections 279/337 and 304-A of RPC and an instant charge-sheet was accordingly presented against him on 14.10.2011 in Court of CJM Jammu.
Charges against accused for aforesaid offences were framed on 06.06.2012. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried following which the Prosecution was directed to lead evidence. In order to bring home charges against the accused, prosecution cited 16 witnesses in the case. It however succeeded in examination of only 4 of them. Prosecution evidence was directed to be closed and thereafter, the statement of the accused under section 342 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 05.02.2020. Initially, Defence counsel wanted to lead defence evidence. However on 26.02.2020, counsel made a statement that the accused does not want to lead defence evidence and accordingly defence evidence was directed to be closed and the matter posted for final arguments.
The Court further observed that there is nothing in the testimony of these witnesses that the occurrence in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. As a matter of record, one of the witnesses namely Constable Pyare Lal testified in his cross-examination that offending vehicle was coming from Amphalla towards Bikram Chowk, a deposition that runs wholly counter to the core of the prosecution case. Lastly, Investigating Officer in the case could not be examined by prosecution and because of non-examination, the site plan remains un-proved.