STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. YASH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") laying challenge to the judgment, dated 31.08.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, Camp at Sarhan, District Sirmaur H.P., in Criminal Case No. 26/2 of 2006, whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to "the IPC").

(2.) Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on 28.08.20015, around 01:30 p.m., at place Dalighat, the accused was driving pickup van, having registration No. HP18A-3337, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. It has further come in the prosecution evidence that the accused could not control his vehicle and due to which the vehicle turned turtle causing simple and grievous injuries to its occupants, that is, Mukesh Kumar, Lajwinder Singh, Lekh Ram and Manoj Kumar. The injured were taken to CHC, Mangarh, wherefrom injured Mukesh Kumar was further referred to District Hospital, Solan. The complainant, Shri Bhupender Singh, who is father of injured Mukesh Kumar @ Vinod (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") reported the matter to the police, whereupon FIR was registered. Police conducted the investigation and prepared the spot map. The vehicle was seized alongwith its documents and the same was got mechanically examined. The spot was photographed Medico legal certificates of the injured were also obtained Medical case summary of injured Mukesh Kumar and his discharge slip were also obtained. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as twelve witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. The accused, in defence, examined only one defence witness.