MODI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this revision petition, has challenged the order dated 7.3.84, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajasamand, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 8.11.82, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kumbhalgarh, by which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE petitioner was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh, for the offence under Section 304A and 279 IPC. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses, viz., PW 1 Bhim Raj. PW 2 Ratan Lal, PW 3 Nawal Ram, PW 4 Bhanwar Nath, PW 5 Kishan Lal, PW 6 Radha Kishan, PW 7 Madan Lal, PW 8 Mitha Das, PW 9 Kalu Lal and PW 10 Dr. Ajay Kumar. The accused, in his defence, examined DW 1 Gaffar Khan - the Cleaner (Khalasi) on the truck. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.77, at about 6.30 p.m., the accused -petitioner was driving truck No. RJY 9066 rashly and negligently, due to which Miss Deoli and Miss Ganga (Daughters of Pratapa), who were carrying water from the well, met with the accident and succumed to the injuries received by them in the accident. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced the accused -petitioner to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC and three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentenced, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Kumbhalgarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, which was decided by its judgment dated 7.3.84. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed and the conviction and the sentence passed by the learned trial court were affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.