DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.9.2001 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2001, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 15.5.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 388/1997, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 1/2 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' SI. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by the complainant namely Ram Gopal at Police Station, Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur on 11.9.1997 to the effect that nephew Ved Prakash was coming on a bye-cycle from Station Bajariya to Aalanpura. At about 3.00 PM, the bus No. RJ 25 - P - 0110, which was allegedly being driven by the accused petitioner rashly and negligently, hit Ved Prakash and as a result of injuries, he succumbed to on the spot. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 347/1997 was registered by the police for the offence under Section 304A IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused petitioner. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused petitioner, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses before the court below. The statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 15.5.2001 convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Against the said judgment dated 15.5.2001, the petitioner filed the appeal. The appellate court, vide judgment dated 24.9.2001 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 15.5.2001 passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the nature of allegation and that the matter pertains to the year 1997 which is 16 years ago from today approximately, the accused petitioner is old persons, it is the first offence of his life; the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, having a large family dependent upon him; he is not the habitual offender, he has remained in confinement for about 10 days; hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 360 CrPC/Probation of Offenders Act and if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.

(3.) Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.