BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Case No. 224-II/93/92, Bhagwan Dass Petitioner herein, driver of private bus bearing registration No. HIK-6575 was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra for the commission of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the Petitioner was to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. However, no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 279 IPC on the ground that both the offences took place in the same transaction. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala has upheld the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner and accordingly dismissed his appeal. Now the Petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 24.2.1992, the Petitioner was driving bus bearing registration No. HIK-6575 on Nagrota Bagwan and Kangra road, Smt. Naro Devi, her daughter Pushpa and son-in-law Pritam Chand (PW-3) were waiting at Gaggal Chowk for taking lift in some vehicle on the said day. When the vehicle of the Petitioner reached at Gaggal Chowk, as per the prosecution case, the Petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the vehicle hit against Smt. Naro Devi, her clothes got entangled in the bumper and the vehicle crushed her left leg. Smt. Naro Devi was taken to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala and then to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science (PGI), Chandigarh, where she succumbed to her injuries on 14.3.1992. The report of the accident was made to the police by Raghubir Singh (PW-2) who was running a tea shop at Gaggal Chowk and his statement was recorded under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure marked Ext. PW-2/A on the basis of which formal First Information Report Ext. PW-4/A was recorded by Sh. Pritam Singh (PW-4), Station House Officer, Kangra. ASI Sh. Sabu Singh (PW-7) inspected the spot of the accident and prepared spot map Ex. PW-7/B. ASI Sabu Singh summoned Photographer Parmod Singh (PW-5), and Kewal Kumar (PW-6), who mechanically examined the vehicle of the Petitioner after the accident. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded by the Investigating Officer. In Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-1), medically examined injured Smt. Naro Devi and found two injuries on her person. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid against the Petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.

(3.) The accusation was put to the Petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The Petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted the driving of the vehicle by him on the relevant day and time and the factum of the accident. He has also admitted the death of deceased Smt. Naro Devi in the road accident. However, he has denied the allegation that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He pleaded that some passengers opened the door of his bus which hit against Smt. Naro Devi and consequently she fell down and received injuries. The Petitioner has led no evidence in defence. The learned trial Magistrate on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident was as a result of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle by the Petitioner which resulted crushing of the left leg of Smt. Naro Devi and as a consequence of the injuries suffered by her in the accident she died. The Petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid on appeal filed by the Petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge on re-appraisal and reexamination of the entire material on record has upheld the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner. Hence this revision petition by the Petitioner.