ORDER :

1. By this Revision, the applicant is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2014 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminal Appeal No. 168/2011 affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa vide judgment dated 24.09.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 1361/2000, whereby, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. According to the prosecution case, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.03.2000 in the noon at about 2 PM when the complainant Jugalkishore Agrawal (PW-2) was standing in front of his house and saw that the deceased Jolobai @ Dhobanibai is washing the utensils in front of the house and at the same time the accused, who was coming from Sakti, while driving the jeep bearing No. MP-26-F/1801 in a rash a negligent manner, dashed the deceased, as a result of which, deceased bumped into the wall. Thereafter, she was referred to the hospital where she has died.

3. After the aforesaid incident, the complainant Jugalkishore (PW-2) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Sakti; Spot Map (Ex.P-3) and Panchnama (Ex.P-4) were prepared by Investigating Officer H.K. Sabari, Sub Inspector (PW-7) and postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. D.D. Mishra (PW-5), who vide his postmortem report (Ex.P-6), found the cause of death to be accidental in nature. During the investigation, vehicle of the applicant was also seized vide Ex.P-8 and its registration documents have been seized vide Ex.P-5.

4. Charges were framed against the applicant under Section 304-A of the IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act and same were explained to him. However, the applicant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charges against the applicant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the applicant pleaded innocence and false implication. However, the applicant did not examine any defence witness.

6. On the basis of material available on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para-1 of this order. On appeal preferred by the applicant against his conviction and sentence, learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant by the learned trial Court. Being dissatisfied by the orders of both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the instant revision.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that judgments of conviction and order of sentence are bad in law as the same have been passed by the Courts below without appreciating the evidence in true perspective. The prosecution has clearly failed to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the applicant while driving the said jeep. Therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set-aside and the applicant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment. He submits that there is cogent evidence available on record establishing involvement of the applicant in commission of crime in question and sentence is also just and proper and does not call for any interference invoking revisional jurisdiction.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

10. Bajrang Lal (PW-1) has categorically de