- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 2.12.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barmer whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner passed on 4.5.1994 by the court below has been confirmed. The learned court below has convicted the present petitioner for the offences under Section 304A, 337 and 279 IPC and has been sentenced as under:- u/s 304 A IPC : one year's S.I. And a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' S.I. u/s 337 IPC : Fine of Rs.200.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' S.I. u/s 279 IPC : one month's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' S.I.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Dhanna Ram lodged a written report on 2.3.1986 at Police Station Barmer alleging therein that he and his nephew Raju were bringing water from the tank, a Nissan truck No. 5783 came driving rashly and negligently and collied with Raju resulted into his instantaneous death. The driver ran away. On this report, FIR has been lodged and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Section 304A, 279, 337 and 429 IPC. Charges for the offences under Section 304A, 279 and 337 IPC have been framed against the present petitioner. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited essential documents. The statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness has been produced in defence. After hearing the parties, the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. Appeal has also been dismissed. Hence this revision. The contention of the present petitioner is that the order of the court below is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. During investigation no evidence has been collected to support the fact that the truck was being driven by the present petitioner. There is no evidence to establish the identity of the present petitioner. In FIR, there is no mention of the name of the present petitioner. None of the eye- witnesses has named him. Megha Ram is the only eye-witness who has not been named in the FIR as eye-witnesses. He reached at the place of occurrence after the incident and, admittedly, the truck from which the accident has occurred was not there and who was the driver has not been established. Without any evidence, the present petitioner has been convicted. Hence the order should be set aside.
(3.) PER contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that Megha Ram is eye-witness and there is no perversity in the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order.;