SHRI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa in Criminal Appeal No. 1/19 (11/1994) whereby he dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.3.1993. passed by the learned Munsiff and Juditial Magistrate, Sikrai, Distt. Dausa in Case No. 267/1992. By the said order, the learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Sec. 304-A and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00. For offence under Sec. 279 Indian Penal Code. he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00. The accused petitioner was also convicted for offence under Sec. 337 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Magistrate also directed that in default of payment of fine i.e. in total Rs. 500.00, he has to suffer one month simple imprisonment.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on 18.5.1981 the accused petitioner was driving a Tractor with its trolley bearing Registration No. RSB 3346 with a group of persons who were going to attend some marriage ceremony when they were returning back on 19.5.1981 the accused petitioner was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner. At about 1.00 P.M. in the night when the said vehicle reached near Manpur bus stand, the said driver kept on driving the tractor at a very high speed and suddenly he turned the vehicle to right side and the trolley of the said tractor turned over as a result of which various persons travelling in the said trolley suffered injuries and one of them Ganga Sahai died in the said accident. The trial Court while trying the case, held the accused petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving relying upon the statements made by PW-1 Shravan, PW-2 Khiladi Ram. PW-5 Lhariya and PW-6 Amar Pal who were declared hostile. However, the trial Court found that there is no legal principle that prosecution depends upon the number of witnesses but the reliability of the witnesses of the prosecution which is more material and on the basis of statements made by various eye- witnesses, the trial Court found the driver of the said vehicle guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the judgment of trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which was failed. hence, this revision petition before this Court under Sec. 397, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Mr. Jain the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused petitioner as the said accident took place on account of bursting of tyre of the vehicle as a result of which the said trolley turned over. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce I.O. as well as the Mechanic who gave mechanical report and, therefore, the benefit should go to the accused petitioner. In the alternative, he submitted that if this Court is of the opinion, that the conviction is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, then the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him which is stated to be about 15 days. He further submitted that the incident relates to the very long past period i.e., about 25 years back. He has also raised the contention that the trial Court while awarding the sentence ought to have considered the case for grant of benefit of probation in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.