MAHINDER SINGH, S/O SHRI KARCHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REE, POST OFFICE SWAHAN, PS KOT, SUB-TEHSIL SHREE NAINA DEVIJEE, DISTRICT BILASPUR (HIMACHAL PRADESH) Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 -NL/10 of 2003, affirming judgment dated 09.12.2003/15.12.3003 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, in Criminal Case No. 122/2 of 1999 convicting the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/ - under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.500/ - under Section 337 IPC, with default clause. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.05.1999 information was given to the police on telephone regarding accident. PW -9 H.C. Ved Prakash and constable Jeet Singh proceeded to the spot. The statement Ex. P -1 of Kamal Nain was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR Ex. P -27 was registered.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 19.05.1999 complainant was driving Jeep bearing No. HPG -999 and was coming from Nalagarh to Ratyor. At about 6.30 a.m., near Hotel River View at Chikanipul, three trucks were coming from Sawarghat side. One truck bearing registration No. HP -28 -0375 was parked on the roadside. The truck bearing registration No. HIU -4636 overtook the trucks and came on wrong side. The complainant applied the brakes of the jeep, but since there was no space, the truck hit the jeep. On the bridge, the jeep was dragged by the truck about 76 feet. The driver and conductor of the truck ran away from the spot. The complainant sustained injuries on his person on account of accident. It has been alleged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General, representing the respondent. I have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that prosecution has miserably failed to connect the petitioner with the accident. There is no legal evidence on record to show that in fact petitioner was driving the truck when accident took place. It has also been submitted that it emerges from the evidence that accident took place due to deflating/bursting of front tyres of the truck. The two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record and have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The sentence imposed is excessive. The prayer has been made for acceptance of revision and acquittal of the petitioner.