STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SANJU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Criminal Appeal No.32-Cr.A/10 of 2012 whereby the conviction and sentence dated 25/30.08.2012 awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, in a Criminal Case No. 6/2 of 2011,has been modified.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.09.2010 Bhagnal Coach No.HP-64-9097 was coming on its route from Manwa to Solan. At about 9.20 a.m., when the said bus reached on the curve between Phagu and Bhant, accused Sanju came driving scooter No.HR-02G-7357 from Rajgarh side with his father Prem Chand as pillion rider. It was further alleged that on seeing the scooter coming from the opposite direction the driver of the bus stopped the bus but the accused, who was driving the scooter in a very high speed on the wrong side hit his scooter against the stationary bus. In this accident, accused Sanju and his father suffered injuries and both of them were removed to C.H., Rajgarh for treatment. The police was also informed about this accident and on the basis of statement made by one Shri Durga Singh, a passenger of the bus, formal case vide FIR No.91/10 was registered against the accused in Police Station, Rajgarh. The police investigated the case. The father of the accused succumbed to his injuries and died in C.H., Rajgarh. It was also alleged that this accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the police forwarded the accused to the Court to stand trial under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC and section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused was summoned by the trial court and notice of accusation was put to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led its evidence and at the close of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded his innocence. However, no evidence was led by the accused in his defence.