RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.6.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhalawar in Criminal Appeal No.36/2005 upholding the judgment dated 4.7.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar in Cr. Case No.155/93 (592/86) whereby revisionist was convicted and sentenced as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_163_LAWS(RAJ)7_2016_1.html</FRM> All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the case are that on 22.5.1986 at about 2.30 AM, Onkar Lal (PW-5) informed about the incident to Hikmattula (PW-21) ASI of Police Station Asnavad, at SRG hospital Jhalawar that yesterday at about 3-4 O&rsquo;clock when he was taking Barat of his son Shyam in a tractor trolley owned by Gajanand Meena, R/o Bhatwasi to village Khandiya, at about 7 O&rsquo;clock in the evening between Munderi and Mundawar, near Gagron road, the driver of the tractor whose name he does not remember, was driving with fast speed and negligently, resulting thereby the trolley of the tractor turned up side down and about 25-30 persons - men, women and children, who were sitting in the trolley came under the trolley and almost all the persons got injured. One Bhairu Lal Bheel died at the spot, whereas another Rakesh died later on. Tractor trolley is lying on the spot. Tractor was bearing No. RJ-3129. Tractor was driven upto Mandawar by Ram Karan Meena. Thereafter, other person was driving the tractor. Due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred. He does not remember the name of the driver. ASI Shri Hikmattula (PW-21) recorded this information on Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-2). On the basis of it, regular FIR No.35/1986 (Ex.P-38) was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet against the revisionist petitioner was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. The case was later on transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. Substance of accusation for offence punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC were read over to the revisionist. He denied the accusations and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents . The revisionist was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has stated that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is wrong. Witnesses are telling lie due to enmity. He was not driving the tractor at the time of accident, rather Hemraj was driving it. Three documents were exhibited but no oral witness had been examined in defence. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court vide judgment dated 4.7.2000 convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as aforesaid. On appeal, after hearing both the parties, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhalawar vide judgment dated 30.6.2005 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court.

(3.) Learned counsel, Shri Jaswant Singh Rathore appearing on behalf of senior counsel Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar submit that the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below are illegal, arbitrary, against the facts of the case and evidence available on record. Learned counsel submits that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in perfect manner. They overlooked the material fact that at the time of accident, tractor was not being driven by the present revisionist petitioner but some other person. This fact was pointed out by the author of FIR himself in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-5), which is basis, whereupon whole edifice of the prosecution rests. Even the prosecution witnesses, who are said to be eye witnesses, have corroborated this fact. Madan Lal (PW-1) Shyam Bihari (PW-2), Kamla Bai W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal (PW-3), Kanwar Lal (PW-4), Dwarika Lal (PW-12), Ram Vilas (PW-13) and Rameshwar (PW-14), all of them have not supported the prosecution that Ram Karan was driving the tractor at the time of accident.