KISHORE CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the judgment dtd. 22/4/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una (learned Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (appellant before learned Appellate Court) was dismissed and the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Amb District Una, (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, and 304A of IPC. It was asserted that police received an information on 20/10/2006 at 4:45 pm that one person had died in an accident involving the Parmar bus. The police reduced the information to writing (Ext. PW10/A). ASI Deep Chand (PW10), HC Ashok Kumar, HHC Ramesh Chand and Constable Paramjeet Singh went to the spot to verify the information. Rajni Chandel (PW5) made a statement before the police on the spot that she, her husband Sarwan Kumar Chandel (since deceased), and daughters Namrata Chandel and Ankita Chandel were going to Aloh on 20/10/2006 on the scooter bearing registration No.HP-19-5235. They were riding the scooter on their side at 4:15 pm near Kuthera Kherla when a bus bearing registration No. HP-67-0302 came at a high speed and hit the scooter. The informant and her daughter fell towards the kachha portion of the road, whereas her husband fell towards the mettled portion. The driver reversed the bus and crushed the informant's husband under the rear tyre of the bus. He died on the spot. The injured were sent to PHC Amb for treatment. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. The driver and the conductor ran away from the spot. The statement (Ext. PW5/A) was sent to the police station where FIR (Ext. PW9/A) was registered. ASI Deep Chand (PW10) conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW10/B). Photographs ( Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/E) whose negatives are Ext. PW7/F to Ext. PW7/K were taken. The inquest on the dead body was conducted and a report (Ext. PW10/C) was prepared. The bus and the scooter were seized vide Memo (Ext. PW4/A). The documents of the bus were seized vide memo (Ext. PW3/A). The documents of the scooter were seized vide memo (Ext. PW6/A). An application (Ext. PW10/D) was filed for conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr Yogeshwar Ram Ravi (PW2) conducted the post- mortem examination and issued the report (Ext. PW2/A) stating that the death occurred due to the multiple fractures of the skull bones, which was possible by crushing the skull bone with the tyres of the bus. The mechanical examination of the vehicles was conducted by HHC Swaroop Lal (PW4) who found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle, which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext. PW4/A and Ext. PW4/B). The statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

(3.) The learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 304A of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.