NAINA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by appellate court whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court has been confirmed by which the present petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and under Section 134/187 of the MV Act and the present petitioner has been sentenced as under:- 1. U/s 279 IPC : Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I. U /s 3040A IPC : one year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months's S.I. U/s 134/187 MV Act: A fine of Rs.100.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' S.I.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 19.4.2008, complainant Pradeep submitted a written report stating therein that on 19.4.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. he was going to Mahamandir Circle. Dalpat Singh was going on a scooter, one tractor came from behind of the scooter and hit the scooter. Dalpat Singh has received head injury. He got admitted in the hospital where he has been died. On the said allegation, an FIR has been lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and after usual hearing of the case, the present petitioner has been convicted as above. The appeal has also been dismissed. Hence this revision.

(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that Pradeep Parihar and Khem Singh are not the eye-witnesses. They are relative witnesses of the deceased and they are concocted witnesses. There is no evidence about the manner of the incident. The present petitioner is not guilty of the negligence and further more, he has submitted that the present petitioner has already suffered the sentence for about seven months and a liberal view should be taken for him. PER contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is ample evidence to connect the present petitioner and taking note of the concurrent findings of the courts below, this petition should be dismissed.