MAHESHWAR BALI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 29.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 24-S/10 of 2008, affirming judgment /order of conviction dated 22.5.2008/26.5.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Shimla in case No. 42/2 of 2000/96, whereby the learned trial Court, while holding petitioneraccused ('accused' hereafter) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are that Shri Kanshi Ram, (PW-3) reported to the police that on 3.11.1996 at about 11.25 am, while he was at some distance from Police Station, a young man was noticed on the wheels of Maruti Van No. HP-02-4757, who had suddenly turned the van in front of Gurdwara, in a rash and negligent manner and ran over a pedestrian. The van mounted on the pavement abutting highway, and struck against upper wall and then stopped. The pedestrian succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police recorded statement of complainant under Section 154 CrPC, upon which FIR Ext. PW-11/A was registered against accused in the Police Station, Chhota Shimla. After completion of investigation, police presented the Challan in the competent court of law under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Learned trial Court, after finding prima facie case against accused, framed charge under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 22.5.2008/26.5.2008, held petitioner guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as described herein above. Accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 24-S/10 of 2008, However, the fact remains that the appeal was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment/order of conviction passed by learned trial Court, came to be upheld. Hence this criminal revision by the accused, seeking his acquittal after setting aside judgments/order passed by learned Courts below.

(3.) Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel representing the accused, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments/order passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Verma, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed learned Courts below, vehemently argued that bare perusal thereof suggests that same are not based upon correct appreciation of record and both the learned Courts below have fallen in grave error while not appreciating the evidence its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record, to the detriment of the accused, who is admittedly an innocent person. Mr. Verma, further contended that learned appellate court below, while upholding judgment passed by learned trial Court, misconstrued and misappreciated the provisions of Sections 279 and 304A IPC, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice because, bare reading of allegations made against accused, even if assumed to be correct, do not constitute any offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and as such, there existed no prima facie case against accused as such judgments of courts below being erroneous deserve to be set aside.