GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19. 12. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000 (105/2000) by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 1. 9. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 55/96 whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279,337,338 and 304a IPC and sentenced in the following manner:- Name of accused petitioner Convicted under Section Sentence awarded Logar 279 IPC Three months SI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days' SI. 337 IPC Three months' SI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days' SI. 338 IPC Six months' SI and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days' SI. 304a IPC One year SI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition, in short, are as follows:- One Ram Krishna made a Parchabayan Ex. P/12 on 18. 12. 1995 stating inter-alia that on 18. 12. 1995 he and PW9 Durgalal and PW8 Kanhaiyalal were waiting for Bus at Bus Stand Intali and Metador bearing No. RJ-27-G-1948 came and he alongwith PW9 Durgalal and PW8 Kanhaiyalal sat in the said Metador and 1 km. ahead of Intali, the Metador turned because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, as a result of which they and other persons received injuries and one person died. On this Parchabayan, the police registered FIR No. 188/95 (Ex. P/13) at Police Station Vallabhnagar District Udaipur for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a IPC and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Roda was got conducted and his post mortem report is Ex. P/3. THE injured person, namely, Bhanwarlal, Kanhaiyalal (PW8), Durgalal (PW 9) and Ram Krishna were got medically examined and their injury reports are Ex. P/4, Ex. P/5, Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 respectively. During investigation, the police also came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven by the accused petitioner. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279,337, 338 and 304a IPC and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contents of the charges for the offence under sections 279,337,338 and 304 IPC were read over to the accused petitioner on 19. 7. 1996, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. No evidence was led in defence by the accused petitioner. After recording evidence and conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur vide his judgment and order dated 1. 9. 2000 convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a IPC and sentenced in the manner as indicated above, holding inter alia that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused petitioner. Against the said judgment and order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur dated 1. 9. 2000, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3. Udaipur, who vide his judgment and order dated 19. 12. 2000 dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 1. 9. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.
(3.) AGGRIEVED from the aforesaid judgments and orders of the courts below, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. In this revision petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner:- 1. That the prosecution in this case has failed to prove by any admissible evidence that the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. (2) That the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and it was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused petitioner that the alleged accident took place. 3. That looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, lenient view be taken in awarding sentence to the accused petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and orders of the courts below. ;