STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN criminal case No. 29/2 of 2003/2002 decided on 14.6.2004, Respondent was convicted by the learned trial Court but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in criminal appeal No. 12 -Cr. A/10 of 2004, preferred by the Respondent while setting aside his conviction and sentence.

(2.) RESPONDENT faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 26.1.2002 deceased child Sachin along with his father, uncle and cousin were traveling in a tempo being driven by PW2 Riyasat Ali. All these passengers were de -boarded at Bus stand Majra at 5 p.m. When all of them, including the deceased were standing on the side of the road and were to cross the road to the another end, it is alleged that a quails vehicle bearing registration No. UP -08 -6567 being driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent hit the minor child (Sachin). He sustained injuries and fell on the road. Immediately he was picked -up and taken to the Hospital in the same vehicle, later he succumbed to his injuries. The tempo driver (PW2) lodged the FIR. The Qualis vehicle was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. PW4/A. Police also obtained the MLC of the minor child and later his autopsy report. After recording the statements of the witnesses, challan was presented in the Court for his trial.

(3.) SHRI J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General forcefully argued that the learned first appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective and further that the statements of the witnesses concluded the ingredients of the offence charged. He took me through the site plan, prepared by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of this case and also the photographs. He then argued that if prosecution case is examined in the right perspective, there are grounds to restore the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.