AJAY KUMAR ALIAS AJU SON OF SH. MUNSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANGLA, PARGANA, SACH, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against judgment dated 20.9.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba in Cr. Appeal No. 4/05/03 affirming judgment, dated 1.7.2003/23.8.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba in Cr. Case No. 84 -1/2002 convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.10, 000/ - under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1, 000/ - under Section 338 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1, 000/ - under Section 337 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/ - under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(2.) The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The facts in brief are that on 6.11.2001 the petitioner was driving Jeep bearing No. HP -48 -5578. He had given lift to some persons in the jeep. At Gajnuin bridge he could not control the jeep, it turned turtle on the bridge and caused injuries to persons who were working on the road as well as occupants of the jeep. The injuries were found simple and grievous in nature and on account of injuries one Mohan died. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The FIR was lodged.

(3.) HEARD and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the two Courts below have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The evidence has been misconstrued and misinterpreted. The view taken by two Courts below is not possible from the evidence on record. The submission has been made for setting aside the conviction of the petitioner, in alternative submission for lenient view on the quantum of sentence has been made. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that two Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. She has prayed for dismissal of the revision.