PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition is preferred against the judgment dtd. 5/4/2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No.36/2003 whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 13/6/2003 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in Regular Criminal Case No.67/2000 whereby, the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that findings of the learned Courts below are against the facts and material on record. The Courts below have erred in law in placing reliance on the statement of PW-6 Mohan Lal. The accusedpetitioner has come with a specific defence that Mohan Lal was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he did not possess the licence. Therefore, Mohan Lal in connivance with the owner of the motorcycle, levelled allegations against the accused-petitioner of driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Mohan Lal is only witness and there is no other witness of the incident to corroborate the statement of Mohan Lal. PW-6 Mohan Lal in the cross-examination has stated that he did not know, how the accident occurred, therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove that at the relevant time, the accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.

(3.) In defence of the evidence to this effect, conviction of accused-petitioner cannot be sustained for offence under Sec. 304A of the IPC. He further submits that accused-petitioner was also convicted under Sec. 379 of the IPC and PW-9 Gajendra has specifically stated that the said motorcycle was handed over to Nijam, brother of the accused-petitioner for repairing. Therefore, ingredients under Sec. 379 of the IPC are not meted out.