STATE OF H.P. Vs. BAISHAKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal appeal under S.378 CrPC, having been filed by the appellant-State, lays challenge to judgment dated 23.6.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Crl. Appeal No. 24-P/2007, reversing judgment of conviction dated 26.10.2007 passed in Cr. Case No. 232- II/04/2K by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC, convicted and sentenced him as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_57_LAWS(HPH)7_2019_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Precisely, the facts as emerges from the record are that the complainant, Phullan Devi, got her statement recorded under S.154 CrPC, alleging therein that on 4.5.1999, at about 7 pm, at Village Kandbari, accused while driving Tempo bearing registration No. HP-37-5837, in a rash and negligent manner on a public highway, crushed the foot of her granddaughter, Babita, who was standing on the roadside. As per complainant, she alongwith her granddaughter Babita had gone to fetch water from Bowli. Accused, who was driving the offending vehicle, lost control over the same and struck the Tempo against her minor granddaughter, as a consequence of which, her leg was crushed. In the said accident, Babita sustained simple and grievous injuries. On the basis of aforesaid statement under S.154 CrPC, a formal FIR, Ext. PW7/A came to be lodged against the accused. After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Palampur, who on being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed that at the time of alleged incident, he was not driving the vehicle in question. He further denied that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, on the relevant date, time and place. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.