PURSHOTTAM SINGH @ BUDDHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.5.1990 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1989 affirming the judgment and order dated 6.7.1988 passed by the C.J.M., Fatehpur, in Case No. 206 of 1987 convicting the accused revisionist under section 279/337 and 304-A I.P.C. and sentencing him to two months' R.I. and 8 months' R.I., respectively, and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further 15 days R.I. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Heard Sri R. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.1.1986 the complainant Ram Nath was coming back to his village with his 14 years old son Rudrapal Singh and two other people from Shah Ka Mela. All of them were on bicycles. Complainant's son was sitting on the bicycle of Pankaj Kurmi (injured witness). At about 5.00 P.M. when the complainant and the others arrived near the brick-kiln in village Khatauli, one three-wheeler tempo no. UPW3734, which was being driven by the present revisionist in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed, dashed the bicycle of Pankaj Kurmi from behind. As a result Pankaj Kurmi fell down on the left side of the road and the son of complainant Rudrapal Singh fell down on the right side. After the collision the tempo driver proceeded ahead, running over Rudrapal Singh's body causing him fatal injuries. The injured Pankaj Kurmi and Rudrapal Singh were taken to the hospital immediately by the complainant but Rudrapal Singh succumbed to his injuries in the way. The FIR was lodged at the police station on the next day in pursuance whereof a criminal case was registered against the revisionist. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him. The revisionist faced the trial and the trial court after considering the entire evidence- oral as well as documentary adduced by the prosecution and the defence in the court, arrived at the conclusion that the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. were duly proved against the revisionist. Accordingly, it held him guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as aforesaid.