The court affirmed the conviction for rash driving based on sufficient evidence, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar Camp Sri. Madhopur (for brevity, "learned Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2002 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the judgment dated 07.02.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ringus (for brevity, "learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No.36/1991, BT 419/93 convicting and sentencing him as under, has been upheld:-

(i) Section 279 IPC - Two months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200 fine, in default whereof, five days simple imprisonment.

(ii) Section 337 IPC - Two months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 300 fine, in default whereof, five days simple imprisonment.

(iii) Section 338 IPC - Six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine, in default whereof, ten days simple imprisonment.

(iv) Section 304A IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200 fine, in default whereof, simple imprisonment of one month.

2. All the sentences to run concurrently.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that on Parcha Bayan dated 29.12.1990 of the injured Shankar Lal Yadav, an FIR No.140/1990 came to be lodged at Police Station Ringus, District Sikar under Sections 279 and 337 IPC wherein, it was stated that on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the jeep bearing No.RJ23-0474 turned turtle after colliding with a tree on 29.12.1990 at about 11 A.M. resulting in injuries to various passengers.

4. During course of investigation, one of the injured-Shri Gopal expired on account of injuries received in the accident. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section(s) 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Charges were framed against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions who pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated hereinabove. The criminal appeal preferred there against by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 10.03.2003.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner made three-fold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that either he was driving the vehicle or it was being done rashly and negligently. He submitted that he was not subjected to test identification parade. Inviting attention of this Court towards the deposition of Shri. Narendra Singh (PW-4)-the Investigating Officer, he further submitted that he has stated in his examination-in-chief that finding the offence under Section(s) 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC to be prima facie established against the petitioner, he handed over the case file to the Station House Officer. Referring to his cross-examination, he submitted that he has denied that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the jeep driver. His another limb of submission is that the post-mortem report of body of Gopal (Ext. P-14) was not proved by its author, in absence whereof, it could not have been assumed that he expired on account of injuries received in the accident. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle (Ext. P-13) was not admissible in evidence as it was prepared by a Head Constable and not by the Officer of the Transport Department as envisaged under Rule 8.6 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (for brevity, "the Rules of 1990"). He, therefore, prays that this criminal revision petition be allowed, the judgment of learned Appellate Court dated 10.03.2003 be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Courts, would submit that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded ag