The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses to conclude that the accident was caused due to the accused's rash and negligent driving, leading to the death of the scooterist and injuries to the pillion rider.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2006 affirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Una, dated 13/19.1.2006, whereby the accused is sentenced to suffer three months’ simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 338 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- And in case of default of the fine, the convict has to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences will run concurrently.

2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that that the complaint Diwan Chand was working as Baildar in HPPWD Haroli. On 28.9.1998 he was working near Salwana Bhatta. After doing duty, he was returning home by taking lift in the scooter of Shri Suresh Kumar who was driving Scooter HP-20-9530 towards Haroli. When scooterist-Suresh Kumar at around 6 PM reached near Badhera village, one bus, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner, came from Haroli side and dashed against the scooter as a result whereof scooterist and pillion rider i.e. complainant Diwan Singh fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to the District Hospital Una from where Suresh Kumar was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment. But eventually, he succumbed to the injuries en-route to PGI. Police recorded the statement of the complainant Diwan Singh under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of which FIR came to be registered vide Ext.PW14/A in Police Station Una, HP.

3. After completion of the investigation, challan was produced before the court of law and the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found accused guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and accordingly he was sentenced as has been mentioned above.

5. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by learned trial court, accused-petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, however, same was dismissed and the judgment of learned trial court was upheld and hence this revision petition before this Court.

6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate, contended before this Court that judgments passed by both the courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based on correct appreciation of evidence on record as well as on facts or on law. He further submitted that learned courts below while convicting the accused have gravely erred in believing the contradictory and discrepant statements of the alleged eye witnesses. As per him, close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not inspire confidence to conclude the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Mr. Thakur, during the arguments, invited the attention of this Court to statements of prosecution witnesses as well documents exhibited on record to persuade that it was scooter rider who was driving rashly and negligently and there was no fault of present petitioner-accused in causing alleged accident. Mr. Thakur strenuously argued that statement of injured/complaint, Diwan Chand being interested person could not be given much credence by the court because version given by him was in contradiction of alleged eye witness PW-2 Balraj Singh.

8. He also invited attention of this Court to the photographs and site plan which as per him could demonstrate innocence of the petitioner. He pointed out