UMAKANT NAIK Vs. STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who stands convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda, for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days; fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days; simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days and simple imprisonment for 4 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month respectively, by Judgment, dated 21st October 2002, in Criminal Case No. 141/S/97/B and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, by Judgment, dated 21st January 2004, in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2002, has filed this Criminal Revision Application assailing the conviction and sentences.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this revision, are stated hereunder:-

(3.) MR. Rohit Bras de Sa, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has urged before me that P.W.10 Kalidas has no doubt stated that the accident occurred on account of the accused attempting to play the cassette player and as a result of which the bus went out of control and dashed against a tree. He has further submitted that though this witness was cross-examined by the counsel of the accused, an important fact has gone unnoticed and that is that this witness had not stated in his Statement under Section 161 that the accident had occurred on account of the accused attempting to play the cassette player. He, thus, submits that the conviction of the applicant is based on the statement of the witness, which has a material omission amounting to contradiction vis-a-vis his statement.