Honble GARG, J.–This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 2.2.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in criminal appeal No. 80/2000 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 20.11.97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 97/86 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C. and also convicted another accused Shaukat for offence under Section 94/125 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced each of them as under:

Name Conviction u/S Sentence awarded

Mehboob 279 I.P.C. 6 months S.I.

Mehboob 304-A I.P.C. 1 years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 1 months S.I.

Shaukat Ali 94/125 MV Act Fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 7 days S.I.

(2). It arises in the following circumstances:

On 26.8.86, at about 8.45 p.m., PW. 2 Arjun Ram gave Bayan Ex.P/1 to P.W. 7 Amar Singh stating that he and his wife P.W. 5 Jarav were ploughing their field and their daughter Shanti (Deceased) was grazzing buffaloes in the field. At about 5 p.m. in the evening, the deceased started for home after taking with her buffaloes etc. and at that time, a white car (Ambassador) No. RRT 2052 came from the side of Napasar and driver of that car was driving the car rashly and negligently and dashed against the deceased who was going side by side on the road towards her village, as a result of which she received injuries and thereafter driver of the car stopped the car and on being asked, he told his name Mehboob and the further stated that the car belonged to him and he took the deceased to the hospital.

(3). On this report, the police started investigation. Site plans Ex.P/6 and P/6A were prepared and the injury report of the deceased is Ex.P/2. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 27.8.86 at about 10.05 a.m. The post mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P/3.

(4). After usual investigation police filed challan for offence under Sec. 279 and 304 A I.P.C. against the accused petitioner as well as for offence under Sec. 94/125 of the Motor Vehicles Act against one Shaukat Ali.

(5). On 20.4.90, the learned Judicial Magistrate read over the contents for offence under Sec. 279 and 304 A I.P.C. against the accused petitioner and for offence under Sec. 94/125 of the Motor Vehicles Act against another accused Shaukat Ali. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(6). At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case and statements of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. but no witness was examined in defence.

(7). After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C. and accused Shaukat Ali for offence under Section 94/125 of the Motor Vehicle Act inter alia holding:

i) At the time of accident the car in question was being driven by the accused petitioner rashly and negligently as this fact is very much established by the site plan Ex.P/6 & P/6A apart from other evidence.

ii) That the accused petitioner caused accident after diving his car on wrong side.

(8). Against the judgment and order dated 20.11.97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner which was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner and the appeal filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed.

(8A). Aggrieved from the judgment dt. 2.2.2002 passed by Learned Special Judge, the revision petition has been proofed by the petitioner.

(9). In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has raised the following submissions:

i) That findings of both the courts below that the car wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document