THUKAN SHARING Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below has come in revision against judgment dated 9-8-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal (RBT) No. 18 of 2000 affirming judgment dated 23-5-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una in Criminal Case No. 79-1-1997 convicting petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A, 201, I. P. C. and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279, I. P. C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 months, simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304- A, I P. C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 201, I. P. C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. It was also directed that if the fine is paid, the same be given to Jagtar Singh father of the deceased as compensation.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9-11-1996 PW-3 Smt. Mahinder Kaur made a statement Ex. PW-3/A under Section 154, Cr. P. C. that her house is situated at village Dangoli on the side of the road. At about 3.00 p.m. jeep No. HP-02-8074 came from Una side at a fast speed and struck Jagwinder Singh aged 13 years who was standing on the left side of the road as a result of which Jagwinder Singh fell down on the road and he received injuries on his head and blood started oozing out. She later on came to know that the driver of Jeep No. HP-02-8074 was Thukan. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Jeep driver. The driver sped away the Jeep from the spot towards Jogi Panga. The injured Jagwinder Singh later on died in the hospital. On this, FIR Ex. PW- 9/B came to be registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented; against the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A and 201, I. P. C, notice of accusation was put to petitioner accordingly. He denied the accusation. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of the accusation and placed some documents on record. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, the conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal, hence this revision.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. Mr. Neeraj Sharma; Advocate has submitted that the two Courts below have misconstrued, mis-interpreted the oral and documentary evidence on record and have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the petitioner and petitioner is entitled to acquittal on the basis of material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, this Court in revision will not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere in the conviction and sentence recorded by the two Courts below.