5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments are ex-facie perverse which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submitted that as per the F.I.R., the petitioner had made efforts to stop the vehicle, but the same could not be stopped and the accident had taken place and accordingly, rash and negligent driving could not be proved by the prosecution before the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submitted that in the F.I.R., the number of the vehicle was not mentioned, but subsequently when the vehicle was seized and sent for examination by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the vehicle number was given and as such, the identity of the vehicle is also in dispute. He also submitted that the Doctor has not been examined in the case, although the post-mortem report has been proved by the Investigating Officer of the case. He submitted that the doctor having not been examined, the petitioner could not cross-examine the doctor who had conducted post mortem and the real cause of death could not be brought on record and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case of the prosecution could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the petitioner was entitled to benefit of doubt which was not given by the learned courts below and they have wrongly convicted the petitioner.
