BHUBNESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition is maintained by the petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') assailing the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2006, decided on 29.12.2006, whereby the judgment, dated 18.03.2005, rendered by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 954-I/1997, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, was partially modified and the sentence was reduced as under:

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Shri Sher Singh (since dead), who is complainant, was driver in bus No. HP 31-3202. On 19.06.1997 at about 7:30 a.m. when the bus was enroute to Mandi from Sundernagar, at place Bhaur, driver stopped the bus on left side of the road and passengers started alighting. In the interregnum, truck bearing No. HID 1493 came with high speed and rammed into the bus from behind, which caused extensive damage to the bus. In the said accident, passengers also sustained injuries and they were referred to Community Health Centre, Ratti, for administering first aid. The accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused (petitioner herein). FIR Ex. PW-8/A was registered, police visited the spot and seized the truck with its documents. Broken pieces of window panes of bus were also taken into possession. Both bus and truck were taken into possession and the injured persons were medically examined. Photographs of the accidental vehicles were also taken and site map was prepared. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court.

(3.) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt as there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, but he has been convicted only on the basis of uncorroborated and unsubstantiated evidence on record. He has also argued that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond the shadow of doubt and so the revision petition be dismissed. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail.