SALIM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 20. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2000 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 4. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra by which the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 304a IPC and 184 and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the MV Act') and sentenced in the following manner:- Name of accu- sed petitioner Convicted u/section Sentence awarded Salim 279 IPc Two months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days S. I. 304-A IPc Six months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S. I. 184 of MV Act One month S. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days S. I. 134/187 of MV Act One month S. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days S. I. All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition, in short, are as follows:- On 25. 8. 1995, PW3 Bhera Ram Lodged a written report Ex. P/1 with the Police Station Balotra District Barmer stating inter-alia that on that day he alongwith his nephew Nainaram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) at noon started from his house after taking food towards his field and they were going on the side of the road and at that time, from the side of Balotra, a Truck bearing No. GJ 7/t 8236 came with fast speed and dashed against the deceased from the back side, as a result of which, deceased fell down on the earth and the Truck passed over the body of the deceased and dragged him upto 7-8 feet and, thereafter, deceased died on the spot and this incident was witnesses by PW1 Dalpat Singh and PW2 Beenjraj Singh. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/12 and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex. P/3 was prepared by PW9 Lala Ram and the post mortem of the body of the deceased was not conducted by PW4 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Charan and the post mortem report is Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Sections 279, 304a IPC, 134/187 and 184 of the MV Act against the accused petitioner in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra. On 31. 7. 1976, the contents of the charges for the offence under Sections 279, 304a IPC, 184 and 134/187 of the MV Act were read over and explained to the accused petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. No evidence was produced in defence by the accused petitioner. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra through his judgment and order 4. 1. 2000 convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 304a IPC and 184 and 134/187 of the MV Act and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:- 1. That at the time of alleged accident, the accused petitioner was driving the Truck in question and he was driving the Truck rashly and negligently and in coming to that conclusion, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has placed reliance on the statements of PW1 Dalpat Singh and PW2 Beenjraj Singh. 2. That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused petitioner. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 4. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, the accused petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. THE learned Sessions Judge, Balotra through his judgment and order dated 20. 8. 2001 dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 4. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 20. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Balotra, the accused petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court.

(3.) SO far as the points No. 1 and 3 are concerned, they are not much in dispute and the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has mainly stressed on point No. 2.