TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment dated 10.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 45 - P/2005/2002, affirming judgment dated 12/13.02.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, in Criminal Case RBT No. 163 -II/2000/1999, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279, 304 -A IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 04.02.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., he was driving bus No. HP -39 -4398 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and public property and caused accident at place Daroh while reversing the said bus and dashed the rear side of the bus against Ravinder Kumar, who succumbed to the injuries later on. On the basis of statement Ex. PW1/A of PW -1 Ramesh Singh, FIR Ex. PW11/A was registered at Police Station, Palampur. The mechanical report Ex.PW6/A of the bus and post mortem report Ex. PW3/A of deceased Ravinder Kumar were obtained. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304 -A IPC. The notice of accusation was put to the petitioner accordingly. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and led no evidence in defence.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that two Courts below have misconstrued and mis -interpreted the evidence in recording the conviction of the petitioner. He has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. He has prayed for acquittal of the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts. She has supported the impugned judgment.