VINOD KUMAR (IN JAIL) Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2019 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani passed in criminal appeal no. 122 of 2016 and judgment and order dated 17.08.2016 passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal case no. 614 of 2014 whereby both the courts below have convicted the revisionist under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment under section 279 IPC with fine of Rs. 200/- and one year rigorous imprisonment under section 304-A IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Both the sentenced are directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that Taamradhwaj (deceased) was working as helper in the vehicle (dumper) of Jafar Khan, bearing registration no. UA07-D 8798. On 05.06.2013 deceased along with the driver (revisionist) went to Jagdamba Stone Crusher to collect the material; when he went ahead, the driver of the vehicle, who was allegedly drive the vehicle rashly and negligent hit the deceased due to which he died on the sport. Brother of the deceased lodged the FIR, and after investigation charge sheet under section 279 and 304 A IPC has been filed against the revisionist. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined P.W. 1 Bhuwnesh, P.W.2 Gangacharan, P.W.3 Dr. T.D. Rakholia and P.W. 4 Shri Chandra Singh Adhikari. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the revisionist accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations made against him. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence, the trial court has convicted the revisionist accused as above. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist accused preferred appeal before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani which was also got dismissed by judgment and order impugned.

(3.) I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and also evidence on record. This Court finds that courts below have committed no illegality in convicting the revisionist accused.