SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the judgment dtd. 5/12/2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dtd. 27/2/2009 and order of sentence dtd. 28/2/2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 against the accused f r the commission of offences punishable under Sec ions 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant Seema Bala (PW1) and her friend Rashi alia Doli (since deceased) were returning to their homes on 5/4/2000. They reached Dehan Bridge at about 5.30 PM when a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. HP-11-0012 came from Maranda at a h h speed and hit them. The accident occurred due to the high speed of the Jeep and the negligence of the driver. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry in the daily diary and sent ASI Mastan Singh (PW12) for verification. He submitted an application (Ex.PW12/A) to seek the Medical Officer's opinion regarding the competence of the injured to make a statement. The Medical Officer certified that Seema was fit to make a statement. ASI Mastan Singh (PW12) recorded Seema's statement (Ex.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW11/A) was registered. Dr Nirdosh (PW2) medically examined Seema and found that she had sustained multiple injuries. He advised an X-ray. A fracture was detected after the X-ray. The nature of the injury was stated to be grievous. MLC (Ex.PW2/C) was issued. Baljeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Naveen Kumar had also sustained injuries in the accident. Dr Nirdosh also examined them and issued the reports (Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/E). ASI Surjeet further investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW11/C). The accused produced the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-11-0012 and the documents, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). Rashi succumbed to her injuries on 6/4/2000. An inquest on the dead body was conducted, and a report (Ex.PW11/E) was prepared. An application (Ex.PW11/D) was filed for conducting her postmortem examination. Dr. G.C. Sood (PW4) conducted the postmortem examination of Rashi. He found that the cause of death was a head injury. He issued a postmortem report (Ex.PW4/A). Vikram (PW9) took the photographs of the spot (Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/E), whose negatives are Ex.PW9/F to Ex.PW9/I. Tilak Raj (PW14) mechanically examined the vehicle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW14/A). Rajinder Singh (PW10) produced the sale agreement, which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW10/B). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before he learned Trial Court.

(3.) The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 304A and 201 of the IPC, to w ich he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.