MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pali in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2002 upholding the judgment dated 09.08.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Pali convicting the revisionist-accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that PW-3 Mohd. Iqbal lodged a F.I.R. Ex.R 5 with Police Station, Guda Endla, Pali on 25.03.1988, which reads as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... and the FIR is lodged on 25.03.1988 at 10.15 a.m. at P.S. Guda Endla.

(3.) Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is two sets of evidence and one set of evidence, which is adduced by the passengers of bus, whose driver is allegedly made accused, favours the revisionist and testimony of driver of jeep is not reliable because it has come in the evidence that after stopping the jeep, he went to fetch water and was away from the jeep and in that condition he may not be injured or no injury could be caused to him but contrary to this, he has again said that he tab was injured in the incident, which is not reliable being contradictory. All the passengers of bus have said that the bus was not being plied at high speed and they have not said anything against the driver of the bus nor have given any positive evidence of his being reckless. Relying upon the verdicts rendered in Bhagwana v. The State of Rajasthan, [1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 422], Prem Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, [1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.-Suppl.) 9] and Surgyani v. State of Rajasthan, [1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 312], learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the prosecution has failed to produce reliable and positive evidence against the revisionist, despite both the courts below failed to appreciate this aspect and have wrongly passed impugned judgments, which are not correct and are liable to be quashed and has submitted that since both the courts below have committed material illegality and impropriety in passing the impugned judgments, so, the revision be allowed and the impugned judgments be quashed and the revisionist be acquitted from the charges. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the passengers of jeep, who sustained injuries, have made categorical statements that the driver of the bus was negligent, he was plying the vehicle at high speed and recklessly drove the bus and dashed the jeep from the rear side Had he been prudent and cautious, no such accident could have been occurred and there is no error in the findings of both the courts below, hence, the revision be dismissed.