- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr. P.C., is preferred to question validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 04.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur affirming conviction of the appellant recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur vide judgment and order dated 5.1.2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500.00 for the offence punishable under Section 279 I.P.C. and for the same period with a fine of Rs.200.00 for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. He is also sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500.00 and Rs.1000.00 respectively for the offence punishable under Sections 338 and 304-A I.P.C. respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that a written report was submitted on 7.8.1999 at Police Station, Luni by one Sabudin S/o. Ramjan Khan alleging inter alia that his maternal uncle Hazi Khan, Balu Ram with certain other persons met with an accident while going to Marwar Junction in Jeep bearing No.RJ-C-7998. Shri Hazi Khan died as a consequent to the accident. The jeep was driven by accused Balu Ram. On basis of the information, a case was registered and after regular investigation a report was filed before the competent court. The competent court framed charges and on being denied, the trial was conducted. During the course of trial, 11 witnesses were examined and an opportunity was given to the accused to explain the adverse circumstances available in the prosecution evidence. The trial court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. The appellate court examined the entire record and affirmed the conviction. In this revision petition, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no witness has stated that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner that would have resulted into accident and as a matter of fact the accident occurred due to little space on road and availability of 'neem' tree quite close to the margin.
(3.) I have examined the evidence available on record.;