(1.) The accused has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Korba by which the Learned Sessions Judge, Korba has affirmed the judgment dated 30.3.2006 passed in Criminal Case No.1198 of 1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba convicting and sentencing the accused/Petitioner as under:
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.8.1998 at about 5:15 p.m., Complainant Adarsh Choudhary, Bhojeshwar Prasad Nayak and his daughter Akanksha were going on a scooter to Korba via Village Kohadia. The scooter was being driven by Bhojeshwar Prasad Nayak. When they reached near Balco Petrol Pump, one Metador bearing registration No.MP 26 D 4250 which was coming from Korba and being driven by the accused/Petitioner in a rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter on its front and caused an accident in which Bhojeshwar, Adarsh and Akanksha received injuries. Bhojeshwar was being taken to hospital, but, on the way, he died. Offence under Section 304A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused/Petitioner and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him. After trial, the accused/Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. In appeal, the judgment of the Trial Court has been affirmed. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred this revision.
(3.) It is argued by Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that not a single witness at all has stated that the Metador was being driven in a high speed, rashly or negligently by the Petitioner. It is further argued that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence of the eyewitnesses because the evidence available on record do not at all prove that who was driving the said Metador at the time of accident, but the Courts below have wrongly convicted and sentenced the Petitioner for the alleged commission of offence.