GOVIND RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dtd. 22/6/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No.65/2012 whereby learned appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. affirmed and upheld the judgment and order dtd. 13/4/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ajmer in Criminal Case No.665/2008 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Sec. 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Sec. 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Sec. 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Sec. 304-A IPC. It was further ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No.198/2008 for offence under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Chritianganj, Ajmer on 8/11/2008 at the instance of Shri Chetan Kumar Chouhan with the allegation that on 5/11/2008 at about 3.00 p.m. he alongwith his friend-Shri Suraj Mal was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-01-11M-8108 from the side of Madanganj to Sai Baba temple and when they came in front of NCC Office, a Car bearing registration No.UP-16-2050 came from behind with fast speed and in a negligent manner and hit the motorcycle as a result thereof both of them fell down on road and received injuries. It was also alleged that his friend-Shri Suraj Mal sustained grievous injuries and he has been admitted for treatment in ICU of Neurosurgery Ward of the hospital. It is to be noted that during investigation Shri Suraj Mal died as a result of injuries sustained in the said accident. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for aforesaid offences and in support of its case prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence during the course of trial. In his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. petitioner denied the prosecution case but did not produce evidence in defence. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as already stated and the appeal filed against the same was dismissed.

(3.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:-