RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convict aggrieved by judgment dated 10.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 3-N/05/03, has filed the revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 05.07.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, in Criminal Case No. 15-II/ 2000, convicting the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.250.00 for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500.00 for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC with Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes default clause. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.02.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., at Chobin Chowk, Baijnath, the petitioner was driving truck HP-38-6082 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. The truck hit Balak Ram as a result of which he died on the spot. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner. The case was registered on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/A of Tulsi Ram.

(3.) HEARD and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. There are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence imposed is on the higher side. The learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the two Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution has proved the accusation. In revision the evidence cannot be reappreciated. The view taken by the two Courts below is in consonance with the evidence on record. He has made submission for dismissal of the revision.