The prosecution must establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in a manner that endangered human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, as per the relevant sections of the law. Evidence of rash or negligent driving is essential to constitute the offences under the relevant sections.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision is directed by the petitioner/convict against the judgment/order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Jammu whereby the judgment dated 26.09.2014 rendered by the court of learned Railway Magistrate Jammu convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the commission of offence punishable u/s 304-A RPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable u/s 279 RPC and simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable u/s 337 RPC and in default of payment of fine petitioner/convict has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, has been upheld/confirmed.

2. Being aggrieved of & dissatisfied with the impugned judgments, petitioner has questioned their legality, proprietary and correctness and has sought their setting aside/quashment on the following grounds:-

(i) that there is miscarriage of justice as the judgments of both the trial and appellate court have been passed without application of mind and proper appreciation of evidence;

(ii) that the trial judge and appellate judge have nowhere taken into consideration the legal aspects as well as the law established on the subject and returned the findings on the judgments mere on suspicion without proper appreciation of evidence, the same suffer from illegality and irregularity as well;

(iii) that the cardinal principal of law for basing conviction that evidence leading to conviction should be beyond any doubt has not been taken into consideration and appreciated, since there were inherent contradiction and failure on part of prosecution to connect the accused with the incident as the glaring feature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution amply makes clear that there is nothing on record which could connect the accused/petitioner with the accident, and above all, there is no evidence which could further show that the deceased Smt. Pritam Kour was injured in the said accident and the same has led to her death, as there is nothing on record which could show her injuries at the time of accident, her admission in the GMC or any other Govt. Hospital at Jammu or Pathankot as suggested or any other on record which could suggest her treatment during 10 days;

(iv) that the story of prosecution showing that the deceased was injured in the said accident without any record, her treatment for 10 days without any record and subsequently death after 10 days and cause of same attributing to the accused connecting with the accident is highly improbable, and by no stretch of imagination could ever be believed, and thus is an attempt on part of prosecution to falsely implicate petitioner/accused.

3. Sh. Satinder Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/convict, has sought the reversal/setting aside/quashment of impugned judgments of conviction and has further sought the acquittal of the petitioner/convict on the grounds, that the trial judge erred in his judgment while passing the judgment of conviction on the ground that he did not took into consideration the inherent contradiction which came up during evidence and despite contradiction he returned the judgment contrary to the law established on the subject. It is argued, that the trial judge despite having being shown the lacunas and missing of chain in linking the accused that no medical evidence with regard to the MLC of admission of the deceased in the Hospital since the day of accident upto her death for 10 long days was not considered and appreciated. It is vehemently argued, that the trial judge failed to appreciated the legal aspect of the matter as projected by the defence counsel regarding interested witnesses on spot who could not state their cause of presence on sp