MODURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The accused petitioner was convicted under section 279 and 304 A I.P.C. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, and in default of papment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The order of conviction and sentence was made by the Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh on Nov. 5, 1981. Being dissatisfied the petitioner went in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh, by his order dated Dec. 13, 1983 dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision by the accused-petitioner.

(3.) The Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, after examining the evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the offences with which the accused-petitioner was charged with, have been established. They recorded a finding that the prosecution has successfully proved the accused petitioner was guilty for culpable negligence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me the statement of P.W. 6 Bishnu Nath, who has stated that there were some defects in the vehicle and, therefore, the petitioner could not he held guilty of the offences under sections 279 and 301-A, I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge have examined this aspect of the case and did not agree with the defence version in this regard. I do not find any good reason to take a different view from the one taken by the trial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the petitioner. The finding so recorded cannot be said to be against the record or unreasonable or that no reasonable man could come to that conclusion to which they arrived at. The conviction of the accused-petitioner, therefore, calls for no interference in this revision.