KANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgement of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dt. 24-6-86 whereby the judgement and conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dt. 10-3-83 has been confirmed and the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted under Section. 279, I.P.C. and. sentenced to undergo three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. or in default to undergo 6 months R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, brief facts may be stated as under :

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Shri Kanwar Singh has been falsely implicated in this case because he is the owner of the jeep. During the investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep and the police submitted challan against Devendra Singh. Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on the statement of informant Ramswaroop PW 1. It is submitted that the prosecution completely reversed its case from the allegation that the jeep was being driven by Devendra Singh to the allegation now that the petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep. During investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep. ' There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses from the statements u/S. 161, Cr. P.C. and therefore reliance cannot be placed on such statements. Independent witnesses Chandra Prakash and Hans Raj had also seen the occurrence who have not been examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that SHO Ram Swaroop PW 4 who investigated the case has deposed that he arrested Devendra Singh and submitted challan against him. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and he should have been acquitted on this count alone.