Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate acquitting the respondent-accused, Majidkhan Miyakhan Pathan, of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was that on 24th August 2001, the accused was driving a jeep at high speed and negligently hit Shobha, the daughter of the complainant, causing her death. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the jeep was driven rashly or negligently. On appeal, the High Court examined the record and found that the prosecution had cited five eye witnesses but none were examined. The learned APP submitted that bailable warrants were issued but their execution was not on record. The High Court observed that the impugned judgment showed that the proceedings were taken up only with the object of acquitting the accused, and that there was a glaring dereliction of duty by the investigating officer, the APP, and the Magistrate. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trial, directing the Magistrate to ensure the presence of witnesses and decide the case afresh.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Dereliction of duty - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for rash driving causing death - The High Court found that the prosecution failed to examine any of the five eye witnesses and the Magistrate did not ensure their presence despite issuing bailable warrants - Held that the proceedings were conducted only with the object of acquitting the accused, amounting to dereliction of duty by the investigating officer, the APP, and the Magistrate (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was proper when the prosecution failed to examine any eye witnesses and the Magistrate failed to ensure their presence.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and remanded the case to the Magistrate for fresh trial. The Magistrate was directed to ensure the presence of witnesses and decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Duty of prosecution to examine eye witnesses
- Duty of Magistrate to ensure fair trial
- Acquittal set aside for non-examination of material witnesses
