AMIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.8.1999 whereby the trial Court has convicted the present petitioner for the offence under Sec. 304A Indian Penal Code and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000.00 in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 10.12.1987, at 2.30 pm, a written report Ex.P-4 was lodged at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur stating therein that at about 10.00 am Durgalal and other students Ramphal, Prem Singh and Ashok were going to school. Near Gawdi Kala crossing, Vehicle No. Rs.7341 was going ahead and the vehicle No. RNE 196 was Rs.railing behind the above vehicle. The Vehicle No. RNE 196 hit Durgalal and he died on the spot. Thereafter, Buniyad and Amin, who were the drivers of the vehicles, ran away from the place of occurrence after putting the vehicle on fire. On this report, F.I.R. No. 377/1987 was registered. The present petitioner, who was the driver of vehicle No. RNE 196, was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sec. 304A Indian Penal Code The trial Court framed charges against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code and Sections 112 and 123 of the M.V. Act. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The accused- petitioner was examined under Sec. 313 Code Criminal Procedure The learned trial Court, after trial, convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 304A Indian Penal Code and sentenced as above. The petitioner preferred appeal, which too has been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence in right perspective and when the conclusion and reasoning are perverse, it can be assailed in the revision petition. There is no eye-witness to the incident. None of the witnesses have supported the prosecution story. PW-2 Ramdhan is a concocted witness. He does not inspire confidence. He is a designed witness and hence the conviction of the present petitioner should be quashed and set aside.