MANOJ KUMAR GHILDIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.

(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order 28.2.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1999, by which the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the accused/revisionist under Section 279/304 -A I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 279 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further undergo simple imprisonment of one month and a sentence of one year R.I. under Section 304 -A and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month, has been upheld.

(3.) DURING the investigation, the site plan Ex. K -9 was also prepared, which shows that the Jeep suddenly turned towards right side and collided with the Scooter at the extreme corner of the road. It I also clear from the map that the Jeep dragged the scooter for some distance.