MOHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the appellate judgment dated 14.1.99 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 304-A and 279 Penal Code maintained the sentence of one month S.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 under Sec. 279 Penal Code and six months R.l. and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 under section 304-A IPC.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that on 22.1.92 deceased Lala (45 years) was going on a cycle. It is alleged that the accused petitioner while driving Truck RJ-19 6294 rashly and negligently hit the cyclist causing his death. Mahendra Singh, F.C. 519 who was on patrol duty was eye-witness to the occurrence. He lodged a report, on which a case under Sec. 304-A and 279 Penal Code was registered. Accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Dr. K.N. Mathur, P.W. 2 Ummed Singh, P.W. 3 Gopal Singh, P.W. 4 Ismail Khan, P.W. 5 Mahendra Singh and P.W. 6 Hamir Singh. Accused petitioner in his statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. denied accusation. He did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Magistrate after hearing ' the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused held that by the evidence produced in the case the charges are fully established against the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him. The appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(3.) Mr. Garg, contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly or negligently and the accident had occurred because of his fault. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Garg. Mahendra Singh, P.W. 5 who was on patrol duty deposes that the cyclist was going ahead of him and he had seen the truck coming from opposite direction at excessive speed and hitting the cyclist. He further says that the accused was on the steering of the truck. There could not be any cause for Mahendra Singh to depose falsely against the accused. There is nothing in the cross examination of Mahendra Singh as to disbelieve him. It has not been suggested that he had some cause to depose against the petitioner.