The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving, affirming the necessity of adequate punishment proportional to the crime's gravity.

ORDER :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1999 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.09.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.44/05 whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 17.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar in Criminal Case No.306/99, whereby the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.1999, complainant Bhanwar Lal submitted the written report at Police Station Mahalkera stating that on 05.09.1999 in morning at around 8-8:30 AM, grandson of complainant Netram and son of his daughter Haroo were going for natural call to the fields. At a distance, the driver of a minu bus bearing registration No.RJ-02-P-0455 who was coming from Alwar side, driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit Netram and Haroo resultantly, Haroo died at the spot and Netram sustained injuries on his head and body who was also died in the hospital during his treatment. On the basis of written report, the police registered the case under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.

4. The trial Court framed charges but the petitioner denied charges and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of sentence and conviction dated 17.07.2002.

5. Aggrieved from the order dated 17.07.2002, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2005. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the order. He submits that the appellate Court did not consider the record, which includes statements of the witnesses and material available on record. Learned counsel submits that the appellate Court ought to have considered the evidence before arriving at any conclusion.

7. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below failed to consider the aspect that the prosecution could not prove rashness and negligent driving on the part of the accused-petitioner before convicting the petitioner under Section 304- A. Learned counsel submits that prosecution in order to substantiate its case got examined eight witnesses apart from exhibiting 09 documents. He further submits that in the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and any complicity in the crime. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17.07.2002 without properly appreciating the material and evidence obtaining on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The learned Courts below while passing the impugned orders did not consider the fact that no independent witness was examined. All the witnesses who were examined were interested witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that as per the FIR, there is no eye-witness of the incident. As per the version of the FIR, the complainant has just mentioned in it that named persons gave him the particulars about the vehicle which met with an accident. There is no corroborating evidence available on record with regard to preparation of site plan and other documents due to non-production of the IO before the learned trial Court. Due to this lacuna, benefit may have been given to the petitioner because the prosecution story as well as the doc