N.L.TIBREWAL,J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment -dated 23.1.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 17/86 by which the conviction of the petitioner Under Section 304A IPC and sentences passed against him by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer were maintained.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that a report was lodged at police station, Civil Lines, Ajmer on 5.1.1981 by one Anna Singh. In the said report it was stated that he (informant) and one Bhanwar Singh both were standing near a tree and were talking then one truck bearing No. R.S.Z. 1175 came from Ajmer side and struck to his grandson Surendra @ Pappu who was aged 6 1/2 years, while he was crossing the road. It is alleged that the boy had already covered 3/4 of the road but before he could cross the road the truck struck to him and the boy was run over from the right -side wheel of the truck. On the aforesaid report, police registered criminal case Under Section 304 IPC. After usual investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Under Section 304A IPC and the petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the witnesses and completion of the trial convicted the petitioner Under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 11/2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default of payment of fine he was required to further undergo 2 months S.I. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer but, without any success as the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.1.1989. Now the petitioner has come before this Court by preferring this revision Under Section 397/304A IPC.
(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that from the material on record itself no offence Under Section 304A is made out against the petitioner, in as much as the boy who was aged 6 1/2 years, came running to cross the road and while he was crossing the road the petitioner's truck happened to come there and as such the accident took place. In the alternative the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is of the year 1981 and the petitioner was below 21 years of age at the time of the incident as such the benefit of probation should be granted to him. Contrary to this, the learned P.P. supports the conviction and the sentences passed against the petitioner.;