SADDA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were challenged and tried for having committed offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar. By means of judgment dated 21st September, 1994, he was found guilty of offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - and to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304 -A I.P.C. as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. In the event of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment under Section 279 I.P.C. and for one months' simple imprisonment for default of payment of fine imposed under Section 304 -A I.P.C. Fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs/succession certificate of the deceased -Roshan Lal.

(2.) WHEN this judgment of the trial Court was questioned in appeal, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, sentence was modified thereby convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304 -A I.P.C. as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the event of recovery of fine, 50% of it, i.e. Rs. 1,000/ - was ordered to be paid to the next of the kin of the deceased. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by this judgment of the appellate Court below, has referred this revision petition against his conviction and sentence and has prayed for his acquittal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has forcefully urged that in the present case there is no evidence which can be legally translated against his client and special reference in this behalf was made to the statement of PW.4, the so called eye witness. It was further urged in support of this revision that once the statement of PW.4 is excluded from the zone of consideration, there is nothing on the basis of which petitioner could be prosecuted much less convicted, as has been ordered by both the Courts below. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that for all intents and purpose the prosecution has to independently establish its case irrespective of the statement of an accused or his defence which he may put forth during the course of trial.