YUDHVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and was accordingly sentenced by the learned trial Court which findings were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the entire evidence.

(2.) Shri H.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the evidence on record does not disclose any fault on the part of the petitioner, the injuries caused are simple and the injured Ghogan was immediately rushed to the hospital by the petitioner himself and he also ensured that all medical treatments/aid was immediately rendered as also spent money etc. on his treatment. He submits that this is not the natural behaviour of a person who is guilty of an offence, who would otherwise, have fled from the scene of occurrence.

(3.) I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and hold that normally the evidence is recorded after a long lapse of time of the occurrence and it is not normal that each and every detail can be stated by a witness with meticulous particularity. In these circumstances, I cannot accept this submission made by the learned counsel that the evidence is discrepant.