SUKH RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur dt. 16-2-1976, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur convicting him for the offence Under S.304-A, RPC, and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner was driving Truck No. 481/JKA on the National Highway on 14-7-1971, and while coming from Udhampur side towards Jammu at Tikri, his truck hit one Devi Dass causing his death instantaneously. One Mangat Ram was also hit and injured. The matter was referred to the police, which resulted in challenging him for the offence under Ss. 304-A, 279 and 337 of the RPC in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. He was charged for the said offences. He pleaded not guilty. The petitioner was tried and found guilty. He was convicted for the offence under S.304-A, RPC, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He was also convicted for the offence under S.337, RPC, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/-. He challenged the said judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by medium of an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him of the charge u/s 337, RPC but maintained his conviction and sentence for the offence u/s. 304-A, RPC. He has felt aggrieved of the said judgment and order, and hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have examined the record thoroughly.

(3.) Mr. Thakur has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, mainly, on the following grounds : Firstly, he has argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not given sufficient reasons for disbelieving the testimony of Maya Devi, a defence witness. She has deposed that, she was travelling in the truck of the petitioner, and was seated on the front seat, when the alleged occurrence took place. According to her, the petitioner was not driving his vehicle, rashly, and that the accident was the result of some ditch on the spot of alleged occurrence.