RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 3.11.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Cr. Appeal No. 99-S/10 of 2011, affirming the judgment dated 24.9.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. (1), Shimla, in case No. 86/2 of 2009, whereby the present petitioner accused has been convicted and sentenced under Section 279 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused to further undergo imprisonment of seven days.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that complainant namely Ravi Chauhan (PW4) in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC stated that on 28.10.2009, when he was on his way from Kachi Ghati to Dhali via bye pass, in his car bearing No. HP-10-9800, a Tanker bearing No. HR-37C-1195, came from the opposite side in high speed. The complainant further stated that at that relevant time, accused had been driving the tanker in question in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tanker struck against the Car being driven by the complainant. The Complainant further reported to the police that, he with a view to save himself took his vehicle to the extreme left/upper side of the high way, as a result of which, vehicle turned upside down. On the basis of aforesaid statement Ext. PW3/B, police registered formal FIR against the petitioner accused under Section 279 IPC. After completion of the investigation, SHO Police Station Shimla, presented the challan/report under Section 173 Cr.PC before the competent Court of law.

(3.) Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Shimla, taking cognizance of the aforesaid report having been filed by the police put notice of accusation to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, fact remains that learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution held the petitioner guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and accordingly, sentenced him as per description already given supra.