PRABHAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Additional Sessions Judge)\1, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 27.4.2004, vide which he upheld the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, dated 4.6.2002, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279 and 201 of the IPC as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.2.2000, at about 3.00 p.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station, Barsar that a bus and a jeep have collided near village Sohari. Rapat No. 17 was registered accordingly and thereafter Shri Satpal Singh went to the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Sunil Kumar in which he alleged that he was driving the jeep No. HP -02 -8805 and was taking passengers from Joure Amb to Baba Balak Nath in the said Jeep. Around 12.15 noon, when he reached near Village Sohari, a private bus bearing registration No. HP -36 -3815 came from the opposite side on a high speed. Seeing the bus, the complainant took the Jeep on the left side of the road and still the bus struck against the Jeep. Resultantly, the bumper, bonnet etc. were damaged. After the accident, the driver of the bus reversed the bus and fled away from the spot. No occupant of the Jeep suffered any injury. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus driver. On this statement, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the petitioner for the aforesaid offences leading to his conviction and sentence, as detailed above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that to substantiate their case, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. The complainant Sunil Kumar was examined as PW -1 and there is another eye witness, namely, Anil Kumar, who has been examined as PW -2. PW -2 Anil Kumar is one of the occupant, who had supported the statement of the complainant on all material particulars. Apart from this, there is statement of the Mechanic Achhar Kumar, who has been examined as PW -3 in regard to the damage to the vehicle and the report given by him is Ext.PW -3/A. Another Mechanic was examined as PW -7, namely, Jagmohan Singh, who also gave his report in regard to the examination of the bus, which is Ext.PW -7/A. The statement of the complainant and PW -2 Anil Kumar have been relied upon by the learned trial Court and it had come to the conclusion that the bus was being driven rashly or negligently by the petitioner and it struck against the Jeep which was damaged. Those findings of fact have been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal.