Mukesh Kumar vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner has sought reversal of judgment dated 23.6.2003 of trial Magistrate, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period for six months, for offence, u/s 304A IPC and no separate sentence has been awarded for offence, u/s 279 IPC, as also the judgment, dated 11.8.2004, whereby his appeal against the aforesaid judgment of trial Magistrate, has been dismissed.

A report was lodged at Police Station, Aut (District Mandi), on 11.5.1998, on the basis of statement Ext. PW2/A, u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, made by PW-2 Rajnish Kumar. As per statement Ext. PW2/A, on 11.5.1998,round 5.15 p.m., when the maker of statement was sitting on a bench, outside his shop at Panarsa, a white coloured Ambassador Car, bearing registration No. DLIY-4271 appeared from Manali side, at a very fast speed, and after hitting a girl, who was walking on kutcha portion of the road, fled towards Mandi side. The girl was rushed to hospital, where she died on the same day. Police, on the basis of number of the car got recorded by PW-2 Rajnish Kumar in his statement Ext. PW2/A, came to know that it belonged to the wife of PW-10 Panna Lal. Car was taken into possession on 13.5.1998. PW-10 Panna Lal told the police that present revision Petitioner was employed by him, on behalf of his wife, as driver, for driving the aforesaid car.

Petitioner was challaned. He was tried for offences, u/s 279 and 304A IPC, when he pleaded not guilty, after the substance of accusation was put to him.

Prosecution examined PW-2 Rajnish Kumar and PW-5 Ram Krishan Suman, as eye witnesses to prove the case. It also examined the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body, namely PW-1 Dr. Baldev Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case and the police officials, who went to Delhi and took into possession the car, in question.

Revision Petitioner denied, in his statement, u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, that his car passed through Panarsa area, on the relevant date and caused the accident.

Trial Court concluded that revision Petitioner was driving the car, in question, on the relevant date and the car was being driven in a rash manner, because of which accident took place and the girl died. Consequently, revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.Appeal filed by him in the Sessions Court stands dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General.

Only submission made on behalf of the revision Petitioner is that car, in question, was not involved in the accident and number of the car of the revision Petitioner was got incorporated by PW-2 Rajnish Kumar, in his statement Ext. PW2/A, just by hunch.

PW-2 Rajnish Kumar and PW-5 Ram Krishan Suman very categorically stated that they were on the spot at a distance of 60-100 feet, when they saw the car coming at a very fast speed and hitting the girl, who was walking on Kutcha portion of the road. They also testified that they noticed the number of the car. PW-5 Ram Krishan Suman went to the extent of saying that he even saw the revision Petitioner in driver''s seat and a couple occupying the rear seat of the car. There should be no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses.

Revision Petitioner is shown to be the driver of the car. Car belonged to the wife of PW-10 Panna Lal. Said Panna Lal testified that revision Petitioner had been engaged as driver by him on behalf of his wife to drive the car. No suggestion was put to the witness on behalf of revision Petitioner, in course of cross-examination, that the car had not gone towards Manali during those days or that on the relevant date it was not in the area, where the accident took place. Similarly, to the eye witnesses of the accident, no suggestion was put that the car did not pass through village Panarsa, where the accident had taken place on the relevant date.

In view of the above stated position, I see no ground for interfering with the judgments of the two Courts below. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed.