- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. List has been revised but no one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this Revision.
(2.) HEARD learned A. G. A. and perused the relevant papers. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1984 of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Farukhabad, dismissing the appeal No. 101 of 1984 and affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 and 338,i. P. C. and sen tencing to undergo R. I. for three months and six months, respectively, with a further direction to run both the sentences concur rently, awarded by the Munsif Magistrate IVth, Farukhabad on 12. 4. 84. On 17-7-79 at about 4. 00 run. The applicant was driving a Tanker UTW 6224 with rash and negligently crushed the forearm of Malik Mian. The applicant was arrested at spot. A case under Sections 279 and 338, I. P. C. was registered against the applicant. On the death of the victim the case was converted into one under Section 304-A, I. P. C. After investigation a charge' sheet was submitted against the accused ap plicant. During the trial the prosecution examined the witnesses. The accused denied the charge and stated that no accident took place with his Tanker. He was passing through the place of occurrence. Seeing the mob, he stopped the tanker and went to see the victim at that time he was arrested by the police and falsely implicated in the instant case. Both the courts below believed the evidence of eye- witness P. W. 1 Constable Ram Kishan Misra, who was on duty as Santari of the police station at the relevant time, and P. W 3 Ram Prakash. The Trial Court believed the evidence on record and held the applicant guilty of the offence charged with and convicted and sentence him as stated above. Though he was ac quitted for the offence under Section 304-A as the death was not directly result of the injuries sustained during the accident. On appeal the appellate court had examined the evidence on record. The appeal was dis missed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant as awarded by the trial court were affirmed in the appeal.
(3.) I have examined the evidence on record and found that both the courts below were justified in recording the conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving and causing injuries on the person of the deceased. The judgment and orders of the courts below did not suffer from any il legality of infirmity. The applicant was ar rested at the spot. He also admitted that when he went to see the victim he was ar rested by the police. I do not find any merit in this revision. Accordingly this revision is dis missed. Revision dismissed. .;