HARISH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the applicant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that the deceased Saeeds alongwith one Waheed and Km. Noorfatma was travelling on a Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing registration No. U.P. 11-5821 from Rampur to Saharanpur. The applicant was coming on a scooter along with other persons. Accident took place in which Smt. Saeeda died. A report of this occurrence was lodged on 30th Jan., 1991. The applicant was tried for offences under Sections 279,338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by order dated 25th Nov., 1993 convicted and sentenced the appellant for two months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200.00 under Sec. 279 Indian Penal Code and six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 under Sec. 304-A Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine one month's additional simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1993 which has been dismissed by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur vide order dated 28th July, 1994, aggrieved by which this revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem has not been examined and in absence of his evidence it could not be proved that the death of deceased was on account of the injuries sustained in accident. However the submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the post-mortem report was part of the record and as is clear from the appellate Court's judgment the correctness and truthfulness of this document was not disputed and the examination of the formal witness medical doctor was dispensed with. In my opinion, the judgment now cannot be assailed at this stage for non-examination of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.