The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304A IPC, emphasizing the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony and the standards for revising lower court decisions.

ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

The instant revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 15.03.2005, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.03/2002 whereby while setting aside the appeal, the order of conviction dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 452/1999 was upheld.

2. The undisputed and ineluctable facts of the instant revision, are briefly noted herein-under:-

2.1. That on 19.06.1999, the complainant-Sh. Ramkesh Meena lodged a written report at Police Station, Karauli regarding an accident stated to have occurred on 18.06.1999.

2.2. That on the basis of the said written report, the police registered a criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 376/1999 for offence under Section 304A of IPC and subsequently, proceeded with the investigation.

2.3. That the police after conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. Furthermore, after filing of the said charge-sheet, the learned trial court read over the substance of the charge for the aforementioned offence to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner denied the charges and demanded to be tried.

2.4. That the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and in documentary evidence, exhibited certain documents in support of their case. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner denied the prosecution's narration, claiming it to be fabricated. It is to be noted that no defense witness was examined.

2.5. That pursuant to the conclusion of the final arguments, vide impugned judgment dated 13.12.2001, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of the fine thereof, further imprisonment of one month was awarded.

2.6. That being aggrieved, the petitioner appealed against the judgement dated 13.12.2001 before the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli. However, vide impugned order dated 15.03.2005, the appeal so preferred was rejected and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.12.2001 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, was upheld.

2.7. Being further aggrieved of the orders impugned dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001 are legally unsustainable, being contrary to the provisions of the law as well as the facts on record. In support of the said claim, learned counsel submitted that the offence under Section 304A is not made out against the petitioner beyond the realm of reasonable doubt, especially considering the several infirmities and contradictions in the statements tendered by the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and/or on high speed. Despite the same, the learned courts below, solely on a consideration of the fact that the vehicle was being driven rashly on a high speed, have convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A. In this regard, it was contended that mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed cannot be equated with the said driving being negligent and/or rash. Therefore, by placing reliance upon the statements tendered by the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel reiterated the claim of innocence of the petitioner and prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the orders impugned dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently prayed for the dismissal of the instant revision petition, claiming the orders impugned to have been passed in