State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lokendra Puri 6 Crmp/652/2019 Rajendra ... on 14 March, 2019
31. Further the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-3
HC Rabindra Kumar, IO of the present case in order to prove the guilt of the
accused. During his examination in chief, IO gave a detailed account of
investigation carried out by him in the present case. However, perusal of the
FIR Number :403/17 State vs. Kamlesh Kumar Gaur 13 / 17
testimony reveals that he was also not the eye witness to the accident. The
witness had reached the spot only after the accident had taken place and while
he conducted the investigation in the present case, he could not explain in detail
the act of rashness and negligent on the part of the accused. He did not even
state the accused to be driving his car in a rash and negligent manner. Although
he had gotten the mechanical inspection conducted which indicates that the
vehicle was involved in the accident but the same is not sufficient to prove the
act of rash or negligent driving of the accused. Therefore, even the testimony of
PW3 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond
reasonable doubt. Moreover, site plan Ex. PW3/B prepared by the IO is not
sufficient to prove the act of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
While it shows the location of the accident which is undisputed, it could not be
inferred that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the accused.