SUMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is a convict for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, as a consequence thereto, on culmination of the trial as held in Criminal Case Number 220 of 2009, State v. Sumer Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate, District Uttarkashi, vide its judgement dated 25th November 2009 has sentenced the revisionist to undergo a simple imprisonment for period of three months for the commission of offence under Section 279 and a fine of Rs. 500/- has been imposed and for the offence under Section 304A he has been directed to undergo one year of simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- has been imposed and in an event of default to deposit the penalty, the revisionist has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of 2 months. The said judgement of conviction dated 25th November 2009, as rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi stood affirmed on a challenge being given in a Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal Number 49 of 2009, Sumer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand by the judgement dated 24th August 2012 as rendered by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi.

(2.) As per the prosecution story and as considered by Courts below in accordance with the findings which has been recorded in the judgement of conviction rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, it was a case that an FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences at Thana Patwari, Chauki Jugna, District Uttarkashi in relation to an incident which is said to have chanced on 30th October 2008 at about 4 p.m., and which has resulted into the death of Shoorvir Chandra, who is said to be of 27 years of age at the time of the incident and it is also the case of the prosecution that at the time when the accident had occurred on 30th October 2008, he was working under a Contractor in one of the Scheme of Government of India i.e. [1] and at that relevant point of time, he was working at Syalana Kuriyada Khurmola Nawagaon, Motor Marg.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that while the project was being undertaken by the contractor in which the deceased was working, the present revisionist is said to be the driver of the offending JCB, which was being utilised for the construction of the said road and it is the case of respondent that it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the JCB by the revisionist he has hit the deceased from the back portion of the JCB due to which the deceased is said to have suffered injuries ultimately resulting into his death and hence the trial was conducted as against the revisionist for commission of offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC.