DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner challenging the judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.35/2015 whereby he has upheld the judgment impugned dated 03.06.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Devgarh, District Rajsamand and convicted the accused petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. as also under Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act and sentenced him with simple imprisonment for a period of six months and imposed fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 I.P.C. The accused petitioner was also sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. with simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner was also sentenced with simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act. He was also directed to serve out additional sentence in default of payment of fine with 15 days, one month and 15 days respectively.

2. Briefly stating the relevant facts are that a FIR Ex.P/4 was lodged by Dilip Singh mentioning that at 4.40 pm on 18.5.2006, when his nephew Manoj Kumar, aged 11 years was crossing the road to go to his grand father's well from the house situated across the road, one speeding truck bearing registration No.HR- 46-B-3580 dashed him while coming from Bhim. The driver was driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Tyre of the truck crushed Manoj Kumar beneath his waist. He died on the spot. Driver ran away with the truck. Dilip Singh informed Police Station Diwer telephonically about number of the truck. Besides the complainant, Sukhdev Singh, Jhala Ram, Ghanshyam Singh etc. were also eye witnesses of the accident.

3. After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and Section 134/186 of Motor Vehicle Act. After conducting trial, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as mentioned above vide judgment dated 03.06.2013.

4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned appellate Court and the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was upheld vide order impugned dated 02.09.2016.

5. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Courts below have convicted the accused petitioner without any incriminating evidence against him. No eye witness of the accident has been examined during trial except complainant PW/7 Dilip Singh. His statement to have seen the number of truck is also unreliable looking to his statements given during cross examination. As per other witnesses present on the scene, Dilip Singh has reached the place of occurrence after the truck had run away. The petitioner has been implicated in the case simply on the basis of the reply given by PW/12 Pradeep Kumar on the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act. But PW/12 Pradeep Kumar has stated during his cross examination that he did not know who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Learned counsel has further contended that no rashness and negligence has been proved. As per the site plan Ex.P/3, it is evidently clear that the truck was being driven on the left side of the road and the accident took place because the deceased tried to cross the road without taking any caution to check whether any vehicle is coming on the road or not. The witnesses had also admitted that the accident would have not taken place had the deceased Manoj seen on the either side of the road to check whether any vehicle is coming or not. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial Courts have passed the judgment in clear ignorance of facts, which have been revealed by the witnesses. The evidence has not been properly appreciated. Hence, the judgments