MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners-accused Shiv Charan aggrieved from dismissal of criminal appeal No. 41/2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp, Mahuwa, District Dausa, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 23/4/2005 in criminal case No. 734/2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuwa, District Dausa was affirmed. The appellant-accused Shivcharan was convicted under Sec. 279 and 304-A IPC and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month and one year with fine respectively.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that petitioner is an innocent person and was falsely implicated by police. He further submitted that the incident is of 25/4/1999 but report was registered on 26/4/1999 and no explanation of delay was offered by prosecution. He further submitted that this petitioner-accused was neither named in report nor in FIR. He further submitted that the report clearly indicate that due to rash and negligent driving of a speeding truck on national highway, the accident has occurred. He further submitted that instead of tracing and prosecuting truck driver, charge-sheet was filed against car driver, contrary to real facts of the case. He further referred site plan Ex. P-6 and submitted that as per site plan the accident was direct result of negligence of truck driver and the accident is not a result of negligent driving of car. He also submitted that as per site plan, the accident has occurred on middle of the road and for which the petitioner-accused I(car driver) cannot be held guilty. He referred the cross-examination of PW-1 (Surajpal Singh) and submitted that after hitting the car the truck driver has fled from the place of incident. He further referred the statement of PW-3 (Prabhu Dayal) and PW-4 (Mahesh Kumar) and submitted that all these were sleeping in the car at the time of accident and they were not aware, who was driving in rash and negligent manner. He also referred the eye-witness PW-5 (Bhagwan Singh) and submitted that he turned hostile.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner further referred the statement of PW-9 (Kunj Bihari) and submitted that he is not aware about the driver of the car. He also submitted that to establish rash and negligent driving, it is necessary that the evidence must be specific and unambiguous but in the instant case three witnesses PWs-1, 3 and 4 (Surajpal Singh, Prabhu Dayal and Mahesh Kumar respectively) were sleeping in the car and they have not seen the driver of the car driving in rash and negligent manner. He also submitted that one of the eye-witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution thus the involvement of present petitioner is also not established. At last, he submitted that the appellant-accused remained in custody for quite a some time, and he is facing charge of accident from 1999, therefore, a lenient approach be adopted against him and he be released on sentence already undergone by him.