In order to hold a person guilty under Section 304A IPC, rash and negligent act should be the direct or proximate cause of the death. The mere fact that a fatal accident took place would not by itself be enough to make the accused liable under Section 304A IPC.

Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

The petitioner by, way of present revision petition under Section 397/40J. Cr.P.C. has assailed the impugned judgment dated 21.10.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), in criminal, appeal no. 14/1999, whereby, the learned appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate (J.D.), Sojati city (for short 'learned trial Court') for offence under Section 279 & 304A IPC vide judgment dated 1.5.1999. For fence under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner has been sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine to undergo one week's imprisonment and for offence under Section 304A IPC, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergone one year's simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that on 29.04.1989. PW/1 Jabbar Singh lodged a written report at Police station Shivpura stating therein that on receiving a message that a tractor No. RJQ 2067 has overturned near the pond and a person sitting on tractor has received serious injuries, when he reached the spot, he saw that. Bhanwar Singh Khichi was in injured and unconscious state. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Ghisa Ram. It is further alleged that injured Bhanwar Singh was taken to hospital at Jodhpur, however, he succumbed to his injuries on his way.

3. The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 279, 338 and 304A IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offences under Section 279 & 304A I.P.C.

4. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 & 304A, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of their case. The accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations leveled against him however, no evidence was produced in his defence.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 01.05.1999 convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 279 & 304A IPC and sentenced as above.

7. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, who by his judgment dated 21.10.1999 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have failed to consider that there is no an iota of evidence of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. All the prosecution eye witnesses PW/4 Basti Ram, PW/8 Bhunda Ram, PW/9 Sangrama Ram, PW/10 Hukma Ram, PW/11 Parasmal and PW/12 Likhmaram have not the prosecution story and were declared hostile. It is further argued that PW/1 Jabbar Singh who is the informant of the incident is not an eye witness. He has only stated that when he heard the voice, he reached on the spot. Since no witness has seen the incident nor any persons has seen the petitioner driving the vehicle at the time of alleged incident, therefore, both the courts below have misread the evidence and have not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. If is further argued that the prosecution has failed to produce the investigating officer and the doctor who conducted the postmortem of deceased. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside. He has placed reliance of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shar