BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision, the petitioner-convict Babu Lal @ Pappu Singh is challenging the judgment dated 17.5.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur whereby the conviction of the petitioner-convict under Sections 279, 304 IPC and Section 134 /187 of the Motor Vehicles Act awarded to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bilara (Jodhpur), vide judgment and order dated 12.2.1995 was affirmed. Briefly, as set up the prosecution case is that on 5.6.1992, a written report was submitted by Ashok Kumar PW.1 to S.H.O., P.S. Bilara stating that he (Ashok Kumar, Land Record Inspector) along with Jai Ram Patel, Krishna Ram, Kishanlal, Jawaharlal, and Shyamlal Suthar went to Barni Khurd from Bilara by Jeep No. RRT 6082. The driver of the jeep was Babulal Meghwal and when they were returning from Barni Khurd via Pipar City, another driver was boarded in the jeep and started to drive it. His name was best known to Babulal. The complainant was not aware of his name. He identified him only by face, who was driving the jeep from Pipar. When they arrived at the farm of Kaluramji, which is before check-post, a truck was going in-front-of the jeep, the driver of the jeep tried to over-take the truck in rash and negligent manner and hit the moped No. RNL 4907, which was coming from front side. The moped driver died on the spot and the pillion rider got serious injured. The accident took place in the evening at 8.00 pm.

(2.) On the basis of the above report Ex. P/2, formal FIR No. 135/92 was registered at P.S. Bilara (Jodhpur) for committing offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC and 134 /187 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bilara (Jodhpur) on 13.7.1992.

(3.) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. After examining the petitioner (who was accused in the case), examined himself and one person as witnesses in defence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the prosecution version and stated that the facts narrated by the witnesses of prosecution are wrong and further stated that he is not responsible for rash and negligent act, rather the moped driver himself was responsible for rash and negligent driving and he himself fell down in the jeep.