ORDER :

1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.116/2011, affirming the judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.84/2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District Dhamtari C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2011 at about 11:30 am, the applicant was driving tractor bearing registration No.CG05-G-1175 carrying deceased- Sarita and other labourers to unload the sand and while returning, at village Kahuabahara market, the tractor was being driven by applicant in a rash and negligent manner, on account of which, deceased- Sarita, who was found sitting over the engine of tractor, fell down in a pit as the applicant suddenly applied the break after seeing the breaker and she came in contact with the wheel of tractor and died while taking her to hospital. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police station Nagri, pursuant to which merg intimation (Ex.P-8) was lodged and FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered against the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Postmortem over the dead body of deceased was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Asha Tripathi, who gave her report vide Ex.P-10 wherein she found lacerated wounds and bruises over the body of deceased and also found fracture of pelvic bone leading to massive heamorrhage shock, on account of which, she died. During investigation, spot map Ex.P-1 was prepared and offending tractor was seized from the applicant vide Ex.P-5 and accused/applicant was arrested.

3. After recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant which was denied by him and he prayed for trial.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he has examined none.

5. Learned Court of JMFC after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2012, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Court of JMFC. Hence, this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence on record for holding the applicant guilty. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No cogent evidence is available on record against the applicant to connect him in the crime question. He also submits that the alleged tractor was not being driven by the applicant in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased met with an accident on her own negligence. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and the applicant be acquitted of the said charges. Alternatively, he submits that i