Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 2.8.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer whereby the appeal arising out of the order dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer has been dismissed, whereby the present petitioner has been conviction for the offences under Sections 304A and 2791.P.C. and has been sentenced as under: JUDGEMENT_141_LAWS(RAJ)12_2012.htm The short facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged at the concerned Police Station stating therein that the present petitioner, on 11.8.1989, while driving tractor trolly rashly and negligently, collided with the deceased. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner and after hearing of the case, the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as above and the appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. The contention of the present petitioner is that both the Courts below have illegally convicted the present petitioner. There is no evidence that the present petitioner drove the tractor in high speed. The witnesses are not trustworthy. The manner of the accident has not been proved and in alternative, he has also prayed for the benefit of probation. illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and the revisions petition deserves to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Initially, a report was filed by Purushottam stating therein that he and his brother were going on cycles in Barmer City at Ahinsa Circle, a tractor came driven rashly and negligently and hit Parmanand. Parmanand was ran over by the tractor. He was shifted to hospital and died. It has also been stated that a police constable also came at the spot to intervene. PW-3 Purushottam, who is the. eye-witness of the accident as well as brother of the deceased, has stated that the present petitioner was driving the vehicle and otherwise also identity of the accused has not been disputed before the Court below by the petitioner himself. Purushottam has specifically narrated about the manner of the accident as well as PW-2 Bakhtawar Singh, who was the traffic constable, has also narrated the prosecution story. Apart from this, the site inspection memo reveals that the accident has taken place in the middle of the city at Ahinsa Circle and the tractor stopped after 30 steps and the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the said memo itself is enough to prove the rashness of he present petitioner. PW-4 is another eye-witness, it is true that he has been declared hostile but instead of this fact, he has stated specifically that the tractor hit the cycle rider. The learned Court below has rightly considered the evidence submitted before it and there is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below.
(2.) The other contention of the present petitioner is that the matter pertains to 1989. At that time, he was a young person of 30 years. He is facing trial since long. Hence, a liberal view should be taken on the point of sentence.
(3.) Looking to the facts of the case and taking note of the law, which has been time and again propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court the present petitioner deserves no sympathy.;