ORDER

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.10.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Badi Sadri camp at Mandafia, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No. 200 of 1991 has been upheld.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court as under:-

All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the petitioner is that above mentioned criminal case was started on basis of a complaint submitted by one Prithvi Raj Dangi (PW-5) stating therein that on 20.05.1991, he along with Ashok Kumar Bhatt, Manohar Singh Mehta and Pritam Dutt boarded a bus No. RRY-8229 to go to Chittorgarh on duty for Lok Sabha elections. They were approximately 20-25 teachers. He was sitting on the roof of bus as there was no space inside the bus. There were lot of passengers even on the roof of the bus. The driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Overhead wires were crossing the route which touched them because driver failed to notice low-hanging wires. Pritam Dutt fell down and suffered a fatal head injury after wire touched his head. Complainant, Ashok Kumar and Manohar Singh also sustained injuries. The incident occurred due to the petitioner's rash and negligent driving.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, case was investigated and after investigation into matter, a charge-sheet for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the petitioner.

5. Substance of accusation under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The Trial Court, after completion of trial, convicted the petitioner and imposed aforementioned sentences. The appeal of the petitioner to Appellate Court was also dismissed, upholding conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said order of the learned Appellate Court, instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused.

7. Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated prosecution evidence in light of checks available on record; that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner, in any way, was acting rashly or negligently; that deceased Pritam Dutt was riding on roof of the bus, therefore, it cannot be said that his death was a result of rash and negligent act of the petitioner. It is further argued that as per deposition of Prithivi Raj Dangi (PW-5), conductor asked them to sit on the roof of bus because it was full. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for injury to the persons sitting on the roof of the bus. Moreover, the deceased was struck by an over head wire due to which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries, therefore, no question of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver could arise.

8. It is further argued that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate evidence in proper perspective and have wrongly recorded conviction hence, he prayed to set aside judgment of conviction and sentences imposed by the Courts below. Lastly, it is prayed that in view of the legal infirmities in judgments of the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court, t