- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner which was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on 3-8-76. The accused-petitioner was held responsible for the offence under Sec. 304-A, IPC and was sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. l,000/ -. The accused-petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a report Ex. P. 1-A was lodged at the police station, Sadar (Sikar) by the accused-petitioner himself in which it was alleged that he was driving the bus RSM 9960 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and was going towards Bikaner from Jaipur. It was further alleged that in the way near Bajor village when one woman was going with her husband on the middle of the road and moved hither and thither she was accidentally hit from the right side of the bus. It was further alleged that the driver stopped the bus and took the injured in his bus to the hospital. On this report, a case was registered by the police and FIR (Ex. P. 3) was chalked out. Site Plan (Ex. P. 5) was prepared and seizure memo of the bangles of the deceased (Ex. P. 4) and arrest memo (Ex. P. 2)were also prepared by the Investigating Officer. The vehicle was also mechanically examined vide memo (Ex. P. 6 ). The injured died in the hospital and post-mortem report (Ex. P. 13) was prepared by the doctor. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate Sikar. Charges u/ss. 304-A, 279, 337 and 338, IPC were framed to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in all produced six witnesses. Statement of the accused u/s 313, Cr. P. C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and gave an explanation about the occurrence but no evidence was produced by him in his defence. The learned trial court after hearing arguments found the accused-petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. The appeal of the accused-petitioner was also dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the entire record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. He further submitted that deceased Mst. Man-bhari who died in this accident was herself negligent in crossing the road from left to right. The driver did not know the fact that she will suddenly cross the road from left to right. He also submitted that it has been admitted by the Investigating Officer that there was a steep near the place of occurrence and it has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that because of this steep usually the vehicles become slow Due to this circumstance it can be inferred that the speed of the bus was below the normal speed. Learned counsel in support of his arguments referred to the cases Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs. The State of Maharashtra (1) Bhanwarlal v. The State of Rajasthan (2) and Bhag-wan v. The State of Rajasthan (3 ). The learned P. P. on the other hand submitted that the accused-petitioner has been rightly convicted by the trial court. He submitted that as per the report of the mechanic the foot brake of the bus was defective and it was the bounden duty of the petitioner not to drive the vehicle with defective brakes. He also submits that from the evidence it has been proved that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He referred the to case Baldevji V. The State of Gujarat (4 ).
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, two eye-witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, i. e. PW2 Raghunath and PW5 Bhunaram. It has been contended by the learned P. P. that as a general rule the High Court will not interfere in revision with a finding of fact. The contention of the learned P. P. may be correct, but the High Court interferes with the finding of fact where the finding has been arrived at contrary to the well established principles of law, or where there is no evidence to support the finding, or where the finding is perverse or no reasonable man could have arrived at such a finding on the evidence produced. In the light of above principle, now I will have to examine the case as to whether it is based on reliable evidence or not. If it appears that the judgment passed by the courts below is based on reliable and consistent evidence, then definitely no interference is possible, but if the trial court as well as the appellate court did not appreciate the evidence in its true sense, or the conclusion arrived at by the courts below is not supported by the evidence on record, then certainly this court is fully competent to interfere with the findings of the courts below and to pass an independent judgment. 1 have stated earlier that in this case PW2 Raghunath is claimed to be the eye witness by the prosecution. He in his examination-in chief has stated that the roadways bus was coming from Jaipur and going towards Sikar. It was running slow and was crossing the steep. He further stated that some camel carts were standing by the southern side of the road and the deceased was talking to her husband on that side. Suddenly, the deceased Mst. Manbhari rushed to cross the road from south to north and then she collided with the said bus. She collided with the right side of the bus. It was also stated by him that the bus was running on the right edges of the road. In cross-examination, this witness stated that near about the place of occurrence there is a steep and as such generally the buses while coming from Jaipur become slow at this place. It has been admitted by the witness that the driver had given the horn and that the deceased was talking to her husband while standing near the camel cart on the southern side of the road. When the bus was about to cross the camel cart, then suddenly the deceased ran to cross the road from south to north. The driver used the brakes and the bus stopped, but the accident took place. ;