TIKAMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.1994 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Criminal Appeal No. 21/1992 whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the accused -petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 26.09.1992 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No. 218/1985 convicting the accused -petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentencing him to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC; and to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ -; and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(2.) THE accusations against the petitioner had essentially been that on 24.05.1985 at about 05:00 p.m., with rash or negligent driving of his truck bearing registration number GRX 3677, he caused the death of a pedestrian Harkharam near Gala Nadi at Surta -ki -beri, Police Station Dhorimanna. Upon submission of the charge -sheet after investigating on the report made by PW -5 Mahesharam, the petitioner was charged of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

(3.) ASSAILING the judgments and orders aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the accused -petitioner has strenuously contended that the findings as recorded by the learned courts below are rather of assumptions than of proper appreciation of the record. The learned Counsel submitted that the basic facts that the alleged accident occurred with the use of the vehicle in question and that the petitioner had been driving the offending vehicle have not been proved by the prosecution; and for want of proof of such fundamental facts, the entire accusation turn out to be hollow and baseless. The learned Counsel has particularly referred to the statements of the alleged eye -witnesses and submitted that there is no such assertion which could be said to be in the proof of the identity of the accused -petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Counsel further submitted that the medical officer concerned has not been examined so as to prove the postmortem report and hence, another set of basic facts on the death and cause of death having not been proved, the charge against the petitioner cannot be held substantiated. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the orders impugned.