NAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by Nagsingh, accused-petitioner against the judgment dated Feb. 19, 1980 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalore. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under sections 279,304 A of the Indian Penal Code and 89 read with 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as the sentences awarded thereunder have been affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore.

(2.) It was submitted by Mr. Arora, learned counsel for accused-petitioner that there is the evidence of Hastimal P. W. 1 a solitary witness and it has been wrongly relied upon. I have gone through the statement of P. W. 1 Hastimal and through the judgment of the two courts below. The conclusion arrived at of the evidence on the record by the courts do not appear to be unreasonable and the view taken by the court regarding the testimony of P. W. 1 Hastimal is reasonably possible. The first information report of the incident was lodged within 15 minutes. There appears no reason to interfere in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, so far as the merits are concerned.

(3.) The other submission of the learned counsel for accused-petitioner is that the courts have not assigned any special reason as to why the accused is not entitle to the benefit of the Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or of section 360 Cr. P. C.