Details - Dhemaji

More documents

Recommendations

Info

number of the said vehicle and after seeing it he has come to know that the vehicle is registered in the name of Kamal Ch Chutia. He also said that the driving license of Surjya Gogoi which he was seeing in Court today was valid. The road permit which has been shown to him today was valid on the day he submitted the offence report. The insurance documents shown to him in court covered the insurance of the vehicle on the day he submitted the offence report. He also stated that he has not produced any Xerox of the notice which he issued in Court. He denied the suggestion made to him by the defence counsel that he bore personal grudge against the accused persons. PW1 in his evidence stated that on 6.9.2011 he was on duty and his area was from Jonai Tiniali to the ASTC counter. PW2 was the Town in Charge and he saw the documents of the vehicle. The vehicle was parked and he saw from a distance that PW2 was questioning the driver of the vehicle. He further stated that he did not know for the lack of which documents was the case given. He was given as a witness because his duty was detailed in that area. The defence also examined two witnesses. DW1 who is the driver of the vehicle stated in his evidence that on 6.9.2011 police asked him to show his driving license which he accordingly showed and he was not asked to show any other documents. He also stated that he was wearing shoes when police came near his vehicle, which he had just parked. There were no passengers in the bus. All the documents were valid when police checked his vehicle. The owner of the vehicle which he drives is Kamal Chutia who was not present in Court that day. In his cross examination this DW has stated that he told the name of the owner of the bus as Hema Chutia. DW2 Hema Chutia has stated in his evidence that the owner of the vehicle AS-22/3366 was his son Kamal Chutia and he had all the valid documents of the vehicle today which he has submitted in photocopies after comparing it with the original. He
also stated that as far as he knew there was no pollution machine in <strong>Dhemaji</strong> Lakhimpur area for the last four years. On appreciating the evidence on record and after perusing all the documents submitted in this case we now go on to determine whether the accused persons are guilty of the offences under MV Act in this case. The case was filed on 6.9.2011 as per the offence report submitted by the informant and from his own statement in cross examination it is clear that on the day the offence was reported all the documents were valid and in proper order. Also from the evidence of PW1 we come to know that the vehicle was parked and DW1 has also stated in his evidence that he had just parked the vehicle and there were no passengers in the bus. DW1 further stated that the police asked him to show his driving license which he accordingly produced and did not ask him to show any other documents. On perusal of the documents submitted in court by defense it is seen that all the documents are in correct order and they do not reveal any lacunae. The fact whether the accused persons did not intentionally produce the documents on being asked has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. More over accused Hema Chutia is also not the real owner of the vehicle as the documents reveal and as admitted by PW2 in his cross examination. DW1 in his cross examination stated that he informed the police official that the name of the owner of the vehicle as Hema Chutia. However if the police personal had taken the correct procedure and sent the required notice to the accused persons than this fact would have come into light. However the PW2 came to know of the fact only on the day he was present in court and seems to speak volume of the way in which he conducted this case. Thus his statement cannot be totally relied upon. We can therefore concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussions it can be said that the offences under sections 177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 of the MV Act have not been established
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF NO 2/JUDICI
Page 3: 3. Whether the accused persons by d

Details - Dhemaji

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?