ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused is charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 279, and, under Section 337 of the IPC. The learned trial Court made a verdict of conviction, upon, the accused, vis-a-vis, the afore drawn charges against him. The verdict made by the learned trial Court became assailed by the convict before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court through a verdict made on 11.04.2011, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 2010 affirmed both the verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences imposed upon the convict hence by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the accused/convict rears a grievance, and, for his espousing his grievance, he rears, the extant criminal revision petition before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Attar Singh was going towards Zero Chowk, Sundernagar on 9.5.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. At that time a scooter came. Its headlights were not switched on. The scooter was being driven with higher speed and it hit the victim, as a result, the victim fell down onto the road. He suffered injuries on his right eye, face and on the other parts of his body. He was taken to Sub Division Hospital, Sundernagar. Intimation was given to the police. The police recorded the statement of the victim, and, an FIR was recorded in the police station concerned.

(3.) The victim, one Attar Singh stepped into the witness box as PW-1, and, during the course of his examination-in-chief, he proved his statement, recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., by the police, statement whereof, is borne in Ex. PW-1/A. During the course of his cross-examination, he acquiesced to a suggestion that in case, at the relevant time and at the relevant site, rather not prevailing darkness, thereupon, the accident would have not hence occurred. The testification of PW-1 is fully corroborated, and, supported by the testification of PW-3. If the testifications of both PW-1 and PW-3 are read in a wholesome manner, thereupon, this Court would draw a conclusion that they are neither improving nor embellishing upon their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, neither they render their testifications with any inter se contradictions nor their respective testifications are containing rather versions, contradicting the recitals occurring in Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, absolute evidentiary worth is to be accorded to their respective testifications.