NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 35/1993 and upheld the judgment dated 30.8.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, in Criminal Case No. 261/1986 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 279, 304-A, Indian Penal Code. For offence under Sec. 279 Indian Penal Code., the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100.00 and for offence under Sec. 304-A he was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment with a fine, of Rs. 100.00. In default of payment of fine, he will further suffer simple imprisonment of 15 days. The learned appellate Court however, modified the judgment by reducing the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the trial Court. The appellate Court however directed that for offence under Sec. 304- A, Indian Penal Code. the accused petitioner shall suffer three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default of payment of fine, the accused petitioner will further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a Jeep No. GJC 5861 which was being driven by the accused petitioner on 30.6.1986 at about 2.00 P.M. on that day on the road in between Chirawa to Mandela, it met with an accident with a Scooter which was being driven by one Om Prakash as a result of the said accident, the Scooter driver Om Prakash suffered injuries on the spot and ultimately succumbed to the injuries and died in Hospital. The accused was tried for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. for rash and negligent driving and also for causing death to Om Prakash, the Scooter driver as aforementioned.

(3.) Mr. Vipul Jaiman, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before this Court that the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused petitioner as he was not identified as a person who was driving the jeep at the relevant time nor any eye-witnesses have stated that he was the person who was driving the said jeep by which the accident took place at the middle of the road and, therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be set aside.