The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, particularly in establishing the identity of the accused and proving culpable rashness or negligence. It also highlights the application of legal principles such as res ipsa loquitur in evaluating evidence.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. The applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23rd March, 2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 326/99 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, confirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 304A read with Section 201, IPC recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 349/98 on 3-8-99, has filed this revision petition.

2. It is to be noted that the learned Trial Judge after convicting the applicant under Section 304A, IPC awarded 1 1/2 years R.I. and imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months and, awarded six months R.I. and imposed fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month, for offence under Section 201, IPC. But the learned Appellate Court, partly allowed the appeal; while up-holding the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the jail sentence awarded under Section 304A, IPC from 1 1/2 years to 1 year and 6 months to 3 months for offence under Section 201, IPC; but maintained the imposition of fine for each offence.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the applicant/accused did not possess regular/permanent driving licence but was carrying a learner licence. On 9-9-94, the accused/applicant brought out her Fiat NE Car from her house on the main road in the reverse gear and while proceeding on the main road dashed a scooter which was being driven by the deceased-Sanjeev; as a result of which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and the pillion rider who was also carrying a gas-cylinder in his lap suffered certain injuries. Immediately therefore, the deceased was taken to a nearby clinic, from where he was taken to D.K. Hospital; but before any assistance could be provided to the deceased, he died. Dehati Nalishi was lodged by P.W. 1 Kishore Kumar Jaiswal. After receiving the information the police proceeded with the investigation, prepared the memo of dead-body, seized the scooter, the said Fiat NE Car, driving licence carried by the accused, prepared spot-map, registered the F.I.R., the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the post-mortem report was also obtained. After completing the investigation, the police agency filed challan before the Competent Court, The accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, was put to trial. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above, therefore, the accused took-up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Court while maintaining the convictions, reduced the jail sentences as detailed above, therefore, the accused has come to this Court.

4. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the statements of P.W. 1 Kishore Kumar and P.W. 3 Damru Dhar Nayak, it does not appear that they had witnessed the incident or could identify the driver of the offending vehicle. It is also submitted by him that from the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-l) it does not appear that the accident occurred when the vehicle was proceeding in the reverse gear or in the forward direction. According to him, the evidence available on the record would show that the scooter was hit from the right side bumber which would show that the alleged accident did not take place as narrated by the witnesses. He also submitted that non-mention of the name of the accused either in the FIR or in the case-diary statement of another alleged witness Damru Dhar Nayak (P.W. 3) would clearly show that they were not the eye-witnesses and in any case they are unable to fix the identity of the driver. He further submits that non-examination of the pillion rider and non-seizure of the gas-cylinder also speak against the prosecution because the pillion rider would have been the best witness to give the details of the accident. He submits that from the evidence; it would clearly appear that the car had hardly moved 5 mtrs. which would mean that the car was not in excessive speed and there i