The revisional court exercises limited jurisdiction, focusing only on clear legal errors while upholding convictions based on substantial evidence of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 29.05.2007 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2007, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, (learned Trial Court) convicting the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles (in short ‘MV Act’) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. It was asserted that informant-Ajay Dhawan (PW2) was sitting on the lawn of his house on 03.04.2005. Vinay Sharma (since deceased) came towards the road at 12:30 pm. A truck bearing registration No. HP-63-1277 came from Rohru at a high speed and hit Vinay Sharma. The driver left the truck and ran away from the spot. Vinay Sharma succumbed to his injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver. An intimation was given to the police. HC-Roshan Lal (PW13) went to the spot and recorded the statement of Ajay Dhawan (Ext. PW2/A) and sent it to the police station where FIR (Ext.PW13/A) was registered. HC Roshan Lal conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW13/B) and seized the truck bearing registration No. HP-63-1277 along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). He conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the report (Ext. PW13/C). Dr Dilsher Singh (PW10) conducted the post-mortem examination of Vinay Sharma and found that he had died due to a crushed head injury leading to the fracture of both frontal parietal temporal and occipital bones. He issued the report (Ext. PW10/A). Ashok Kumar (PW12) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no defect in it which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext. PW12/A). HC Roshan Lal recorded the witnesses' statements. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. The learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Madan Sharma (PW1) is the witness to the recovery of the truck and the documents. Ajay Dhawan (PW2) is the informant. Trilok Chand (PW8) and Lajwanti (PW11) are the eye-witnesses. Shiv Dev (PW3) and Bhagat Chand (PW4) reached the spot after hearing the noise. Akshay Chauhan (PW5) is the owner of the truck; however, he did not support the prosecution case. Kaushalya Devi (PW6) is the mother of the deceased and an eyewitness. Raj Kumar (PW7) is the father of the deceased, who was informed about the accident and reached the spot after the accident. Constable Ashok Kumar (PW9) is the witness to the recovery. Dr. Dilsher (PW10) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Ashok Kumar (PW12) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. HC Roshan L