NARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the two Courts below sentencing him to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment each for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, 100/- and 300/- respectively.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 11th December, 1993 around 9.50 P.M. PW1 Ashok Kumar alongwith PW2 Chaman Lal were returning to Sarkaghat after attending a marriage at Dabrog. Chaman Lal was the driver and Ashok Kumar was the pillion rider. When they reached near the bridge opposite the IPH office, jeep bearing No. HP-28-0551, which was being driven by the petitioner, collided against the scooter as a result of which the scooter suffered damages and the scooter driver and pillion rider suffered injuries. According to the evidence on record, the jeep was being driven in rash or negligent manner and did not have its headlights on at the time when the accident occurred. The injured were shifted to the hospital at Sarkaghat by Inder, father-in-law of PW3. There were four injuries on his person and one on Ashok Kumar. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case.

(3.) From the evidence on record, the Court held that the prosecution had been able to prove its case as recorded in FIR Ext.PW1/A that the accident had taken place as alleged and that the petitioner had run away from the spot immediately after the accident. The learned trial Court also took into note that both these witnesses had stated that the jeep was being driven in a zig-zag manner by the petitioner without caring the life and safety of the persons walking on the road. The Court took into consideration the site plan Ext.PW9/B to hold that road was sufficiently wide at the spot and no accident could take place if a motor vehicle was driven in a safe manner. The prosecution also tried to establish that the petitioner was in a drunken condition at the time when he was driving the jeep for the reason that when he got down from the jeep, he could not walk straight but was walking in an ungainly manner which shows that he was in a drunken. Though the Court holds that this may be an improvement in the case as this fact was not stated before the police but the fact still remains that jeep was being driven in a zig-zig manner. On the basis of this, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner.