ORDER :

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss. 397 and 401 CrPC lays challenge to judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Una in Cr. Appeal No. 9-X/2011, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.4.2011/18.4.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (II), Una, in Cr. Case No. 13-II-08, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 201 IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused as under :

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 30.11.2007 at 5.55, a telephonic information was given to the Police Station Haroli by Medical officer, Community Health Centre, Horoli to the effect that a person, who suffered injuries in a vehicular accident has been brought to the hospital for treatment. In this regard Rapat No. 16, (Ext. PW-10/A) was recorded. HC Pawan Kumar, Police Station Haroli, recorded statement of Gurcharan Singh, injured, Ext. PW-1/B, under S. 154 CrPC, who alleged that on 13.11.2007, he was transporting grass on his bullock cart from his field to his house and at about 4.45 pm, a private bus (Rajindra Bus) came from Tahliwal side on very high speed, and struck against the bullock cart, which was moving on the left side of the road. He alleged that due to impact of the bus, bullock cart went off the road and he (complainant) suffered injuries on his right arm and other part of the body. He alleged that the driver of bus fled from the spot after alleged commission of crime. He averred that the complainant came to know about registration number of the bus as HP-67-0108. He alleged that the mishap occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, who was driving the bus at the relevant time in high speed. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, served notice of accusation upon the accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 201 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas, the accused in his statement recorded under S.313, denied the prosecution case in toto and claimed himself to be innocent.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on record, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 279, 337 and 201 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given above.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below accused preferred an appeal in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Una, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 9.10.2012. In the aforesaid background accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned by learned Courts below, while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 279, 337 and 201 IPC, this court finds sufficient reason to agree with learned counsel for the accused that both learned courts below have failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, fi