KAPIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 1.6.2010 passed by learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar in Cr.appeal No. 7/2010 whereby he has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar dated 17.3.2006 passed in Cr. case No. 333/2005 by which accused petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo SI of one month for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C., and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo SI of one month for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant Santosh filed a complaint against the accused petitioner stating inter alia that on 28.11.2005 at about 1.00 pm she was going to her house, however in the way near school, a vehicle Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splendar having registration No. RJ-02/10M-9696 came and hit the complainant, as a result of which, complainant sustained serious head injury. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and framed the charges for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, examined certain witnesses and exhibited some documents. Statement of accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.3.2006 imposed the fine upon the petitioner.

(3.) Against the said judgment dated 17.3.2006., the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar who vide order dated 1.6.2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision petition has been filed against the said judgments of both the courts below.