MEHAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 337 I.P.C.

(2.) THE case set up by the prosecution against the petitioner is that F.I.R. No.93 of 2001 was filed with Police Station, Kandaghat on 2.10.2001 on the statement of Mahinder Kumar complainant. He stated that he was the conductor of H.R.T.C. bus and on that date, he and PW5 Jai Parkash were assigned duties on the bus bearing No. HP- 14-5308 to Amritsar. At around 8.30 p.m. when the bus reached near Kiarighat, truck No. HP-11-3067 being driven by the petitioner came from the opposite side at a high speed on the wrong side. This truck hit the bus of the complainant as a result of which he and his son suffered injuries. THE driver fled away from the scene of the accident and the injured were rushed to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla for further treatment. THE prosecution examined PW1 Chinta Mani who proved Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/A to certify that there was no mechanical defect in either of the vehicle. PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar, photographer proved on record Ext.PW3/A to Ext.PW3/G and Ext.PW3/A-1 to Ext.PW3/G-1 negatives of these photographs of the accident. PW5 Jai Parkash driver of the bus substantiated the allegation made in the first information report. He also stated that his son Master kapil who sitting in the bus, was injured. PW8 Master Kapil also supported this fact. His testimony was recorded after the court ascertained that he was capable of understanding the nature of his deposition. THE learned trial Court on this testimony as also the photographs held that the truck was being driven on the wrong side and was therefore responsible for causing the accident. PW9 Dr. M.P.Singh proved the injuries of driver PW5 Jai Parkash. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court found that the accident and criminal negligence of the petitioner was established on the record. He, therefore, proceeded to sentence the petitioner as noticed above.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment and the record of the case. I am not persuaded to hold that the courts below are wrong in assessing the evidence in the manner in which they have done. Adverting to PW4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, he states in his evidence that though the accident had occurred but he was sleeping at that particular point of time. Therefore, it cannot be said that his testimony in any way negates the evidence led by the petitioner. On the evidence of PW1 Chinta Mani, I find that he does not support the case of the petitioner. Learned appellate Court has also examined the spot map Ext.PW11/B which speaks for itself. The conclusion arrived at by the courts below are neither perverse nor un-supported by the evidence on record. In these circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed.