STATE OF H P Vs. VARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1995, whereby appeal of the respondent was allowed, and as a consequence of it conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb in Case No. 61-1 of 1994, dated 23/08/1995 has been set aside.

(2.) As a question of fact, it may be noted that the respondent was challenged and tried for having committed offences under Ss. 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After conclusion of the trial he was found guilty of the offences except for the one under S. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 under S. 279, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment whereof to undergo one months simple imprisonment under S. 338; and to undergo one years simple imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 for offence under S. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(3.) Sole question that needs to be determined in this appeal is whether the accident was the result of rash or negligent act on the part of the respondent endangering human life or not. As per learned Additional Advocate General, after scanning the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3 coupled with the hostile P.Ws. 1 and 4, as well as documents Ex. P.W. 10/B and Ex. P-1 to P-4, only one and irresistible conclusion points towards the guilt of the respondent. Thus according to him, learned Appellate Court below has gravely erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby setting aside the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. This plea was controverted by Mr. Sharma on behalf of the respondent. According to him impugned judgment on facts needs to be upheld and he has prayed for the same.