RAM RATTAN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed against conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner by trial court in Cr. Case No. 113/2 of 2005 vide judgment dated 22.6.2010 and affirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Solan in Cr. Appeal No. 10-S/10 of 2010 vide judgment dated 28.2.2011 in case FIR No. 128 dated 2.8.2009 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC registered at Police Station, Barotiwala.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that conviction of petitioner is based upon only statements of PW-1 Naveen Rastogi and PW-2 Jeet Ram, purported to be eye witnesses, but are procured witnesses, whereas from their statements it is evident that none of them has seen the occurrence and they have been introduced to make sure conviction of petitioner and even their version is treated to be correct then also, from their depositions it transpires that both of them reached on the spot after occurrence and even have not seen the person driving the Pickup bearing No. HP 15B-0227 involved in the accident. It is also argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that petitioner- accused was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident and also the manner in which accident has occurred so as to prove rash and negligent act of driver of the Pick-up and he submits that for want of direct evidence, prosecution has failed to prove guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and mere suspicion, cannot be based for convicting petitioner.