DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI THANDI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LARDH, POST OFFICE GARKHAL, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against judgment dated 5.7.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 22 -S/10 of 2005, affirming judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Criminal Case No. 255/2 of 2003. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 279 IPC, imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 304A IPC and fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act with default clauses. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.7.2003 at about 12.20 p.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station, Dharampur that near Pine Grove School a Tata Sumo had met with an accident. Police reached the spot. It was found that two persons were lying unconscious on the spot. They were immediately taken to CHC Dharampur for medical treatment. The driver of vehicle No. HP -02 -8909 had received minor injuries. He disclosed his name Dinesh Kumar.

(2.) IT was found that vehicle was on its way from Dharampur to Kasauli. The petitioner was overtaking another vehicle. The petitioner lost control over Tata Sumo which he was driving, Tata Sumo rolled down from the road. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Ruka Ex. PW -8/A was prepared and was sent to the Police Station, Dharampur on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW -3/B was registered. The site pan Ex. PW -8/B was prepared. The accident ridden vehicle alongwith documents were taken into possession.

(3.) THE notice of accusation was put to the petitioner. He denied the accusation and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case but did not lead any evidence in defence.