KRISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, affirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuipur, District Kangra, holding the petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A, IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 279, IPC, rigorous imprisonment of three months under Section 337, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 304A, IPC. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the findings of guilt and sentence imposed after scrutiny of the facts and evidence on record.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day, that is on 23-8-1996, Das Raj along with his wife and daughters was standing outside shop of Sarav Singh who was dealing in vegetables at Raja Ka Talab. It was raining and they had taken shelter in the shop. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was driving Jonga Jeep bearing No. PAG-9042 in a rash and negligent manner which came from Jawali side and ploughed into the vegetable shop causing death of Neha, daughter of Das Raj and injured his wife and the other daughters. The police took the jeep and documents in its possession. Photographs of the accident site were also taken. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A, IPC. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the case set up by the petitioner is one of complete denial. No defence evidence was led by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned trial Court on the evidence on record, more especially the evidence of Das Raj (P.W. 1), who was an eye-witness and who recognized the petitioner as the driver, as also of P.W. 3 Anil Kumar, who also witnessed the accident and identified the petitioner as the driver, held the petitioner guilty of rash and negligent driving and sentenced him for having committed the offences as charged. In appeal, these findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court.