The main legal point established in the judgment is that eyewitness accounts can be sufficient to establish the death of a victim in cases of rash and negligent driving, and there may not be a need for medical expert testimony in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present Cr. Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed in Kako P.S. Case No. 253 of 2001, G.R. No. 1837 of 2001, T.R. No. 417 of 2022 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. and further convicted for rigorous 0imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A) of I.P.C. It has also been directed that both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently and the judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2022 has also been challenged, by which, the criminal appeal of petitioner challenging the order dated 28.07.2022 has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story the informant has given information on 21.10.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. that at about 4.30 p.m. the informant and his son Shailendra Mahto aged about 18 years were coming from Kako block. As soon as both of them reached near the Pulia towards east of Village-Auliachak, the truck bearing Registration No.-M.P. 24C 4894 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the son of informant, as a result thereof his son fell down and the truck ran over his son who died on spot instantly. The specific allegation is against the driver that he dashed the son of informant, as a result of rash and negligent driving.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that for the said information F.I.R. bearing Kako P.S. Case No. 253 of 2001 dated 21.10.2001 under Sections 279/304(A) of I.P.C. was registered, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 279/304(A) of I.P.C. subsequently charge has also been framed under the said provisions of the Indian Penal Code and after charge trial was conducted, in which, petitioner was convicted and above stated sentence were imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by A.C.J.M.-III, Jehanabad, the petitioner has preferred criminal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2022 against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2022 in Kako P.S. Case No. 253 of 2021. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the appeal, the order passed by the trial court was affirmed and the said criminal appeal was dismissed on merit, thereafter, he has preferred the present Cr. Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

5. It is well settled in law that the scope of criminal revision is limited and the Court has to look into the correctness, legality and propriety in the judgment/order passed in appeal.

6. Counsel for petitioner has raised two points, the first point he has raised is that the informant of the case has not been examined and the second point is that the Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem has also not been examined. He further submits that for the purpose of proving the case under Sections 279/304(A) of the I.P.C. these are the legal requirement to fulfill the ingredients under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, as such, the said order passed by the original Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court required interference and may be treated as illegal order.

7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes for the same and submits that from the judgment of the original Court, it transpires that F.I.R. has been exhibited. There are two witnesses on the basis of which the present case has been decided. From the statement of those two witnesses, it transpires that they are the eye witness of the said case. One witness has categorically stated about the informant that informant has written the F.I.R. in his presence and put his signature. The said witness has also