KAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dtd. 12/8/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the Rs.Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2002 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dtd. 30/6/2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanchore, District Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the Rs.Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 348/1999 convicting the accused-petitioner for offences under Ss. 279, 304A I.P.C. was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 17/6/1999, the accused, who was the driver of Rajasthan Roadways bus bearing No. RJ-04-P-0234 was parking the bus at Sanchore bus stand when suddenly, a child named Bhanwara came in between a bus which was already parked and the bus being driven by the accused. An accident took place in which the child ultimately died. An F.I.R. was registered against the accused for offences under Ss. 279, 304A of I.P.C. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused. The judgment of conviction was upheld by the learned Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court, the accused-petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has committed grave illegality while passing the impugned judgments. It is submitted that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the accident did not take place on a highway, rather it took place at the bus stand where the petitioner was parking the bus. It is further submitted that it is also an admitted position that when the bus was being parked, the deceased came running from behind the bus and was crushed between the two buses, one of which was standstill and the offending vehicle which was being parked near it by the petitioner. Learned Counsel further relied upon the statements of PW-6 Ishwar Dan-complainant and the F.I.R. ExP-20 to substantiate his arguments. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the petitioner be acquitted of the offences under Ss. 279, 304A I.P.C.