- (1.) This petition is directed against the judgement of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dt. 24-6-86 whereby the judgement and conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dt. 10-3-83 has been confirmed and the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted under Section. 279, I.P.C. and. sentenced to undergo three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. or in default to undergo 6 months R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, brief facts may be stated as under : Shri Ramswaroop son of Shri Bagaram Bisnoi resident of STK lodged a report on 21-10-77 at 3 p.m. at Police Station Raisinghnagar that he and his brother Ramchandra, Dulichand, Chhoturam and Dhannaram who came to see Dashehara in Raisinghnagar Mandir at 2.45 p.m., was talking to Hansraj Tailor at the shop of Chandraprakash on the Station Road. At that time, Chhoturam was coming from the hotel of Shivchand after taking tea who was hit by a jeep driven by the petitioner at a very high speed with rashness and negligently. The petitioner did not stop the jeep and drove away fast towards the Court. Shri Chhoturam was injured on head. He was taken to the hospital but died of the injuries in the accident. A case was registered under Section 279/337, I.P.C. and converted to S. 304-A, I.P.C. and after investigation, challan was filed against one Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Singh son of Shri Shyam Singh Rajput resident of Raisinghnagar. The police did not file challan against the petitioner. On 23-3-78, accusation of the offence under Section 304-A was stated to the accused Devendra Kumar who denied to have committed the offence. The prosecution produced its evidence and examined PW 1 Ram Swaroop on 13-3-80 in which he clearly stated that the petitioner Kanwar Singh son of Jaswantsingh Jatsikh resident of 12 PS was driving the jeep rashly and negligently at the time of accident and hit his younger brother Chhotutam. He also deposed in the statement that he did not give any "Teetamba statement" i.e. further statement during the investigation to the police and the police recorded such statements Ex. P-4 in order to save the petitioner and to implicate Devendra Kumar. It may be mentioned here that PW 1 Ramswaroop also submitted an application on 6-2-80 before his statement was recorded on 13-3-80, that the charges have been framed against Shri Devendra Kumar, but, infact, petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep and caused the accident but the police did not submit the challan against him. It was prayed in the application that. the proceedings be initiated against Kanwarsingh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner by an order dt. 27-3-80. The accused-petitioner Kanwar Singh appeared in the Court and the trial proceeded against Devendra Kumar and Kanwarsingh. During the course of trial, the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings under Section 258, I.P.C. against Devendra Kumar by order dt. 4-10-82 on the ground that there was no incriminating evidence at all against him. On completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar passed the impugned judgement convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304 -A, I.P.C. and passed the sentence also as stated above.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Shri Kanwar Singh has been falsely implicated in this case because he is the owner of the jeep. During the investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep and the police submitted challan against Devendra Singh. Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on the statement of informant Ramswaroop PW 1. It is submitted that the prosecution completely reversed its case from the allegation that the jeep was being driven by Devendra Singh to the allegation now that the petitioner Kanwar Singh was driving the jeep. During investigation it was found that Devendra Singh was driving the jeep. ' There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses from the statements u/S. 161, Cr. P.C. and therefore reliance cannot be placed on such statements. Independent witnesses Chandra Prakash and Hans Raj had also seen the occurrence who have not been examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that SHO Ram Swaroop PW 4 who investigated the case has deposed that he arrested Devendra Singh and submitted challan against him. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and he should have been acquitted on this count alone.;