- (1.) THIS revision has been filed by accused-petitioner Mahaveer Singh against the judgment dated 18.1.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2012 titled as Mahaveer Prasad v. State arising out of the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura District Bhilwara in Case No. 223/2011 titled as State v. Mahaveer Singh, whereby the conviction of accused-petitioner Mahaveer Singh was affirmed as follows:- (1) Sec. 304A IPC: two years' SI with rupees two thousand fine and in case of default, six months additional SI, (2) Sec. 279 IPC : six months' SI with rupees five hundred find and in case of default, one months' SI, (3) Sec. 134/187 : fifteen days' SI with rupees one hundred fine and in M.V. Act case of default, three days' SI.
(2.) THE accused-petitioner has simply submitted that he is in jail in this case since 18.1.2013 and he wants that he may be allowed to be released on undergone sentence on count of all the three charges. He has also argued that in motor accident claim filed by parents of deceased Manbhar, an amount of Rs.2,85,000/-(rupees two lacs eighty five thousand) has already been paid by the insurance company of his motor cycle to them. Copy of the order dated 27.4.2012 of Lok Adalat in MAC No.54/2011-Ghisi Devi and others v. Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. has also been produced before me for perusal in this respect. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that on merits he deserves acquittal in the case. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence which was produced in the lower court. It has been argued on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor that causing death by negligence is a serious matter and in such matters, liberal view should not be adopted, looking to rise in the motor accidents in our day to day life.
(3.) IN the above background, I have perused the statements of PW-4 Asha. She is eye-witness of the incident. She supports the story of negligence alleged against the petitioner. PW-5 Tara Sharma is also eye-witness of the incident. She also states that because of negligence of driver of the motor cycle, her friend Manbhar was killed. PW-1 Nand Lal does not say anything important about the incident. PW-2 Shyam Lal is the father of the deceased. He states that details of the incident had been narrated to him by the friends of his daughter, who were Tara and Asha. He has proved FIR (Ex.P.3) which was loged by him. PW-3 Rajendra is a witness of site plan. PW-6 Ishwar proves that Ex.P.5 was the notice on which he had replied that at the time of accident, he was the registered owner of the vehicle and that motor cycle was being driven by petitioner Mahaveer Singh.Other witnesses PW-7 Bheru Singh, PW-8 Narpat Singh, HC and PW-8 Ratan Lal, ASI have also fully supported the prosecution story. PW-10 Shiv Singh says nothing important about the incident. PW-11 Ram Pal is Mechanic who examined the motor cycle.;