SONA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.7.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore Camp Bhinmal, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the petitioner's conviction for offence under Sections 304 (A), 279 Indian Penal Code, but has reduced his sentence from one year to six months of simple imprisonment for offence under Sec. 304A Indian Penal Code, and from three months to one and half months for offence under Sec. 279 Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 4.9.1990, one Ratan Lal, A.S.I., Police Station, Sanchor recorded Joita's statement (Ex.P-2). In his statement, Joita claimed that in the morning he had gone from village Seveda to Savidhar Mafaji. On his way back, at the Raniwara bus stand, he met Hardan, whose in-laws house is situated in village Seveda. Hardan also had to go to village, Seveda. Around 5 P.M., Sona Ram, the petitioner, was driving his taxi bearing registration No. R.R.T. 4787 from Raniwara to Sanchor. When they asked Sona Ram, he told them to sit on the roof of the taxi. Subsequently, Joita, and Hardan, and two or three other passengers sat on the roof of the taxi. According to Joita, Sona Ram was driving the jeep negligently and at a great speed. As soon as the jeep reached in front of the Police Station, Savidhar Mafji, due to the presence of a pot hole in the road, Sona Ram suddenly hit the brake. Consequently, Hardan fell from the jeep. He was immediately rushed to Sanchor Hospital. On the basis of the said statement, a formal F.I.R. was chalked out for offences under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code However, during the course of his treatment, Hardan expired. Therefore, the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 304-A Indian Penal Code and for offences under Sec. 66 read with Sec. 192 of Motor Vehicle Act.

(3.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted eleven documents. The defence, in turn, submitted only two documents, but did not examine any witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 6.9.1994, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66/192 of M.V. Act and imposed a fine of Rs.200.00.