SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana (for short 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1999 (15 of 1997) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Didwana (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 161 of 1996 was dismissed. The Trial Court by order dated 30.5.1997, convicted the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 279 and 304-A Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 279 Penal Code and; two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4000.00 for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine of each of the offences noticed above, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. On the fine being deposited, the same was directed to be paid to father of deceased as compensation. The appellate Court, by well reasoned judgment, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that PW 1 Chatra Ram lodged a first information report Ex.P/1 on 11.11.1996 at 5.45 PM, inter alia, alleging therein that on 11.11.1996 at about 4.30 PM, his nephew Madan Lal son of Bhera Ram aged 14 years was going towards his house from market. He was walking at left side of the road, at that relevant time, a mini Tata Truck model No. 407 bearing No. GJ1-U-6539 came from opposite direction, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit Madan Lal as a result whereof Madan Lal suffered injuries on the legs and head and succumbed to the injuries instantaneously; the occurrence was witnessed by Hanuman Ram and Prithvi Raj, they got the vehicle stopped; it was found that petitioner Sita Ram was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident and thereafter, the petitioner ran away leaving the truck on the spot. On this report, the investigation ensued. The truck was seized on the spot and autopsy on dead body of Madan Lal was conducted and after site was inspected, a notice under Sec. 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was served on the registered owner of the vehicle and after completion of usual investigation, a challan was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 279 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner produced as many as 14 witnesses and documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/12. The petitioner made statement under Sec. 313 of the Code, denied the allegations and appeared as witness in defence i.e. DW 3 and produced DW 1 Hari Ram and DW 2 Banshi Lal.

(3.) In the instant case, there are two eye-witnesses viz. PW 3 and PW 4 Prithvi Raj and Hanuman Ram respectively of the occurrence, who were promptly named in the first information report lodged by PW 1 Chatra Ram. PW 3 Prithvi Raj categorically stated that at 4.30 PM while he alongwith PW 4 Hanuman Ram was going towards the house of Bhera Ram, at that relevant time, Madan Lal deceased was going ahead of them i.e. at the distance of 20-25 paces away and at that time, a mini truck came from opposite direction at a great speed and hit Madan Lal, who was on his correct side of the road. By seeing the accident, they rushed to the spot and lifted the child but found the child dead due to accident. The vehicle, which was driven by petitioner Sita Ram was got stopped. He further stated that Sita Ram is known to them for last 10 years as he is nephew of their village. Madan Lal was taken to hospital, where Doctors declared him dead. This witness has categorically stated the vehicle No. 6539 Model No. 407 having registration of Gujarat and its colour was green. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his testimony has remained unshaken. On the contrary, he stated that they saw the petitioner in the vehicle on the spot. The truck hit the deceased with its front wheel. PW 4 Hanuman Ram, who at the relevant time was going towards the house of Bhera Ram, has made similar statement. The statements of both these witnesses are consistent to that of first information report Ex.P/1 lodged by PW 1 Chatra Ram. PW 5 Prem Chand and PW 6 Tikam Chand are the witnesses to the site map Ex.P/3, Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/4, Punchnama Ex.P/6 and seizure memo Ex.P/7. These witnesses categorically stated that the truck in question having light green (pigeon) colour was seized by the police on the spot. These witnesses proved the site map Ex.P/3, Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/4, Punchnama Ex.P/6 and seizure memo Ex.P/7. The statements of these witnesses are fully corroborated with the statements of PW 3 and 4. These witnesses clearly stated that the truck having Gujarat registration No. 6539 and its colour was light green (pigeon) was seized by the police on the spot. PW 7 and PW 8 are the witnesses to the Punchnama. PW 9 has proved the post mortem of deceased Ex.P/8. He has stated that the cause of death of deceased was injuries to the brain and due to shock. PW 11 Ram Narayan, the Investigating Officer has proved the various documents and his investigation including the site map, site inspection note, seizure of the truck and notice under section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has stated that during investigation, it was found that due to rash and negligent act of petitioner, the said accident occurred resulting in death of Madan Lal. PW 14 Bhanwar Lal is the registered owner of the truck in question and in reply to the notice under Sec. 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he stated that at the relevant time, his son Sita Ram was driving the truck. The identity of the petitioner was not disputed during the trial.