CHANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pw1 Pramod Kumar Nautiyal lodged an F.I.R. against Chandan Singh Rawat, the driver of Swaraj Mazda Canter No. UA 01/3064 on 24.9.2006, at 15:00 P.M., in P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar, which was registered as case crime no. 548/06 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A I.P.C.

(2.) According to PW1, he alongwith his children was going to Bageshwar market on 24.9.2006 on his bicycle. A truck Swaraj Mazda Canter bearing registration no. UA 01-3064 was coming from Bazar and was going to Almora. Truck driver Chandan Singh Rawat drove the truck rashly and negligently and hit the bicycle, as a consequence of which, both of his children got injured. The applicant was keeping to his left. The accident was caused because of rash and negligent act of the driver. Whereas, the elder son of PW1 died in the hospital, his younger son was referred to the hospital at Almora.

(3.) Thus the criminal law was set into motion at the instance of PW1. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. Accused was summoned to face the trial. He pleaded not guilty to the allegations levelled against him and claimed trial. PW1 Pramod Kumar Nautiyal, PW2 Surendra Singh Palni, PW3 Amar Singh, PW4 Diwan Singh, PW5 Surya Shubham Nautiyal , PW6 Constable Jagat Singh Samant, PW7 Dr. L.S. Brijwal, PW8 Constable Nandan Singh Rawat, PW9 Dr. Jitendra Bhatt, PW10 S.I. Pritam Singh and PW11 Dr. K.D. Shahi were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. He admitted that he was driving the truck, but denied that he was driving the truck rashly and negligently. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, vide judgment and order dated 25.3.2008, convicted accused Chandan Singh Rawat of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. and sentenced him appropriately. Aggrieved against the said order, criminal appeal was preferred, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.7.2008. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present criminal revision was preferred.