STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved by judgment dated 1.10.2005, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused, though has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 187 Motor Vehicles Act, however, has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) On 4.10.2001, the accused was driving truck No.HP-30-1035, towards Tapari from Karchham side. The truck was loaded with apples. Around 9.00 a.m., when the truck reached near Choling Bridge, the accused, in order to bring the same on the bridge, reversed little behind, however, while doing so, he run over an army personnel namely Shri P. Shanker under the rear right side tyre of the truck and as a result of which he died on the spot. The accused and the conductor of the truck fled away from the spot after the accident. The matter was reported to the police by PW-1, Satya Pal, vide Ex.PW-6/A, who was on duty on the army gate at Choling. The investigation was conducted by the Police. Besides taking into possession the offending truck along with its documents, the truck was mechanically examined from PW-4, Motor Mechanic. The spot was got photographed from PW-5. Photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were taken on record. During the investigation, other Police officials Nar Singh PW-3, I.O. PW-6 Kishori Lal, PW-7 Doctor R.K. Negi, PW-8 Mahavir, conductor of the truck, PW-9 Net Ram, were also associated. One more witness namely Umesh, who was working in hotel of one Deva Lal near the Bridge, was also associated as eye witness.

(3.) On the completion of the investigation, the police filed the Challan against the accused. Learned Trial Judge having gone through the material collected by the investigating agency had proceeded further under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the accused and notice of accusation was put to him accordingly. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.