ROOPCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner accused against the judgment/order dated 26.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar, in Criminal Appeal Number 36/2005 (2/2005), whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment/order dated 07.12.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar, in Criminal Case Number 147/1990 convicting and sentencing the petitioner accused; as under:-

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the revision petition are that on 27.07.1990, complainant Data Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P1) at Police Station, Behror, wherein he stated that on the fateful day, when he was sitting at a hotel nearby Ghanshyam Das Petrol Pump, a cyclist was seen coming from the circle towards Behror on the National Highway Number 8 on his right side. When he reached in front of the hotel, a car bearing Registration Number DDU- 344 came from Delhi at a fast speed and hit the cycle from behind. The cyclist was thrown away. The car driver ran away towards Kotputali. The cyclist is known to him. The cycle is lying on the site. The injured has been sent to the hospital. On this report (Ex.P1), a formal FIR bearing Number 132/1990 (Ex.P1) was registered. Site was inspected. Cycle lying on the spot was seized and memos were prepared. The injured cyclist, later on, succumbed to the injuries. Inquest of the dead-body was prepared. Car was seized and a mechanical examination was got done. Post mortem report was obtained. A notice under Section 88 (133) of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short 'the M.V. Act') was given to the registered owner of the car i.e. Mangat Ram (PW7). On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the petitioner accused was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Behror. On up gradation of the Court, the instant matter was tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror. The petitioner accused was read over substance of accusation punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 134/187 and 146/196 of the M.V. Act. The petitioner accused denied the accusations and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited ten documents. The petitioner accused was examined by the learned Trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.RC. He stated that evidence adduced by the prosecution is wrong. DW1 Mahipal Singh was examined, but no document was exhibited in defence. After hearing arguments of both sides, learned Trial Court vide its judgment/order dated 07.12.1999 acquitted the petitioner accused from committing offence under Section 146/196 of the M.V. Act and convicted and sentenced him for other offences, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment/order dated 07.12.1999, the petitioner accused preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar, heard the arguments of both the parties and vide his judgment/order dated 26.07.2005 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner accused, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the revision petition, submits that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in right perspective. From the site plan memo (Ex.P3), it is clear that the accident took place almost near middle line of the highway. It reveals that the cyclist was plying the cycle almost in the middle of the National Highway. It indicates that the driver of the car was negligent, rather the cyclist met the fate of his own. In the instant matter, In vestingating Officer has been produced in the witness-box. In absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, important evidence with regard to the investigation, more particularly the circumstances found on the spot of the crime could be tested on the touchstone of the cross-examination.