HARISH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 2.2.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby appeal of the accused-Petitioner (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 29.5.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Dharamshala, convicting the accused under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, had been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on 15.2.1996, at about 1.15 p.m., Rumelu (since deceased) was coming from Darini to Shahpur after collecting the mail. When he reached near Post Office, Shahpur, the accused, while driving scooter No. HP-40-0594 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Shahpur side and hit the deceased with the scooter. With the impact of the collision, the deceased fell on the ground and sustained bodily injuries. He was shifted to Zonal Hospital, Dharamsala. The occurrence was reported to the police by Dev Raj (PW-3) vide his statement Ex. PW-3/ A under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of this information, FIR Ex. PW-12/B under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act was recorded at Police Station, Shahpur. The deceased, however, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, therefore, the offence under Section 337 was substituted by Section 304A IPC. During investigation, MLC about the medical examination of the deceased Ex. PW-l/A issued by Dr. Ajay Dutta was obtained. After the death of the deceased. Post mortem examination of his dead body was conducted by Dr. D.P. Swami, and the post mortem report issued by him is Ex. PW-2/A. The offending scooter was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. The scooter was got mechanically checked up and was found in proper driving condition vide report Ex. PW-14/A. After collecting the evidence against the accused, the concerned SHO submitted a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Sections 184 and 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The accused was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Kangra at Dharamsala on the accusations under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act. To prove the accusations against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he denied the case of the prosecution as a whole and claimed to be innocent. The accused led defence and examined Rajiv Mahajan (DW-1) in defence.

(3.) On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Magistrate held the accused guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid vide judgment dated 29.5.2000. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamsala by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision petition by the accused.