STATE OF H.P. Vs. VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.8.2006 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge -II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No. 14 -N/2001 whereby the judgment of conviction dated 18.6.2001 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. II), Dharamshala in Criminal Case No. 229 -2 -K/99 was aside. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the police received telephonic information from Zonal Hospital; Dharamshala that one woman was brought to the hospital after an accident. Police went to the hospital. Statement of PW -1 Vijender Singh was recorded under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, he was working in his fields at about 5.00 P.M. on the road side and on the opposite direction, one Smt. Surindera Devi wife of Onkar Singh resident of Nichla Sakoh alongwith her daughter Reeta was cutting grass. A Mahindra jeep came from Kachahari side in a high speed and hit Smt. Surindera Devi. Jeep dragged her about 15 feet. Thereafter, the jeep turned turtle. Smt. Surindera lost her conscious and collapsed on the road. The occupants of the jeep ran away from the spot. Smt. Surindera Devi was taken to hospital. She succumbed to her injuries. Post mortem was conducted. FIR was lodged. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Learned Judicial Magistrate after putting up notice of accusation to the accused for an offence under Ss. 279 and 304 -A IPC read with Ss. 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Sec. 304 -A IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Sec. 279 IPC. The accused was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -each under Ss. 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge -II, Kangra at Dharamshala. He allowed the same. Hence, the present appeal.