The prosecution must prove the accused's rash and negligent act beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt.

Sanjay Karol, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 28.4.2005, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No.56/2 of 2004/2003, titled as State of H.P. versus Rakesh Kumar, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide judgment dated 18.7.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.14-S/10 of 2005, tilted as Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397/ 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The prosecution case is that on 23.12.2002 at about 2:40 p.m., accused was driving vehicle bearing No.HP-09-A0197 in a rash and negligent manner. When he reached near hotel Asia The Dawn, Shimla, he hit Dingu Ram, who was walking on the road with the vehicle. Dingu Ram sustained injuries. Instead of taking him to the hospital, accused fled away from the spot with the vehicle. Information of the incident was given to Police Station, West (Boileauganj). Police Barrier at Shoghi was informed that accused had fled away with the vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted by H.C. Rajinder Kumar (PW-1) and C. Govind Singh (PW-9) at Police Barrier, Shoghi.

3. In the meanwhile, H.C. Ravinder Kumar (PW-6) rushed to the spot of occurrence of the incident. There he recorded the statement of eye witness Shri Jagdish (PW-2) under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.PW6/A), which was sent to the Police Station, West Shimla through C. Ashok Kumar (not examined). F.I.R. No. 33/2002 dated 23.12.2002 (Ex.PW6/B) was registered. Since immediately after the accident, local residents had taken the injured to the hospital, H.C. Ravinder Kumar (PW-6) went there. Dr. Ravinder Mokta (PW-7) examined and opined that the patient had died. Medical report (Ex.PW7/A) was taken on record by the police. Postmortem of dead body was conducted by Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-5) and postmortem report (Ex.PW5/A) taken on record by the police. The deceased had died as a result of ante mortem head injury. The vehicle intercepted at Shoghi Barrier was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/A). With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

4. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, in all prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up a defence of total denial and more specifically that he was not employed as a driver on the vehicle in question.

6. The Trial Court, based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convicted the accused in relation to the charged offences. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in relation to offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code; undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- in relation to offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and imposed fine of Rs. 500/- in relation to offence punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo 7 days, 30 days and 7 days simple imprisonment. Sentences were to run concurrently. Rs. 5,000/, as compensation, was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Dingu Ram on production of Legal Heir Certificate.

7. The lower Appellate Court, affirmed the findings of conviction as also sentence, hence, the present petition.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Courts below have committed grave illegality and irregularity while appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesse