MOHINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by the two courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 279 I.P.C., simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for commission of offence under Section 304-A I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 3.3.1997, Rakesh Kumar son of Dwarka Dass resident of Lal Singhi was proceeding on a bicycle from Una towards Lal Singhi. At around 8.15 a.m., when he reached near Shamshan Ghat Sabzi Mandi, Una, a tempo bearing No.HR-47-4370 driven by the accused dashed into the bicycle from behind as a result of which Rakesh Kumar fell down and sustained fatal injuries. THE case is that the tempo was stopped at a distance of about 50/60 mtrs. from the site of the accident. PW1 Bakshi Ram reported the matter to the police where his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PW1/A was registered. THE deceased was taken to the hospital. His post mortem conducted which corroborated the fact that he had died because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

(3.) ON the evidence on record, namely, PW1 Bakshi Ram eye witness of the accident, PW2 Ram Lal who was also an eye witness stated in clear and unequivocal terms that on the fateful day i.e. 3.3.1997 at around 8.30 a.m., deceased Rakesh Kumar who was riding on a bicycle was hit from behind, the evidence of PW3 Dr. Umesh Gautam who proved post mortem report Ext.PW3/A and PW4 Rajinder Singh who was also an eye witness, the learned Court accepted the case of the prosecution. In order to further strengthen its finding, the evidence of PW5 C. Mool Raj who proved the photographs Ext. P6 to P12 and negatives Ext.P13 to P18 and PW6 Saroop Lal, mechanic who proved on record Ext.PW6/A and Ext.PW6/B certifying that there was no defect in the tempo and bicycle, the court convicted the petitioner herein. There was no defence evidence produced by the petitioner herein and in cross-examination of the prosecution evidence also does not suggest the defence put up by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was innocent person and involved falsely by the police because he had refused to carry the dead body of the deceased to the hospital.