TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment, dated 27.8.2001, of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur camp at Ghumarwin, convicting the petitioner under Sections 279/304 -A of the IPC as under: Under Section 279: Rigorous imprisonment for four months andto, pay fine of Rs. 500/ -.Under Section 304 -A: Rigorous imprisonment for 1 -1/2 years andto pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -.In default of payment of fine, the petitionerwas sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor four months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 9.11.1992 at about 7.45 p.m. at place Banoha, Police Station Bharari, a minor boy Pushvinder Kumar aged about 8 -9 years was crushed by a Maruti Van Bearing No. HP 02 2504, being driven by the petitioner. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. A report was lodged with the police by PW -7 Jai Lal, on the basis of which a case was registered and after the registration of the case, the challan was filed as against the petitioner under Sections 279/304 -A of the IPC. The petitioner was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his conviction, as detailed above, which findings were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner were that no witness has stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. There is evidence to show that the Van was going upwards and as such it was not going at a high speed. It was also submitted that the boy suddenly appeared on the road after getting down from the bus and since he suddenly came on the road, the accident took place. A plea was also raised that on seeing the Van, the boy became perplexed and had not struck with the vehicle but had fallen on the road. The evidence of the prosecution, therefore, has to be appreciated in the light of these points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments.