The judgment emphasized the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction, the importance of evaluating evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the prosecution's case despite defective investigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge) Ramnagar [‘Trial Court”], in case No.121/2013 titled ‘State of J&K v. Vijay Kumar’, whereby the petitioner was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 RPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- and simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, as upheld by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“Appellate Court”] vide judgment dated 25.07.2017, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner/convict against his conviction and sentence was dismissed, the petitioner/convict has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court as upheld by the Appellate Court.

2. The facts leading to the filing of present revision petition in nutshell are as under:

2.1 That the appellant was charged and tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC; the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence that had been adduced before it by the prosecution as well as defence, by judgment dated 03.11.202016, convicted the appellant under the aforesaid offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- for commission of offence under Section 304-A RPC and simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence under Section 279 RPC.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appal before the Appellate Court. The appellate Court, vide judgment dated 25.07.2017, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, against petitioner/accused/convict.

3. Before proceeding further to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the appellant, to assail the impugned judgment, it would be appropriate to notice factual backdrop of the case.

3.1 As per the prosecution story, on 18.12.2013, police of Police Station, Ramnagar received information, through reliable source, that a bus bearing registration No.JK02G-4055 being driven by one Vijay Kumar, in a very rash, negligent and careless manner, while being plied from Basantgarh towards Ramnagar, met an accident at Gundia when the driver lost control over the bus, which hit a pedestrian, who died on spot. On this information, FIR No.154/2013 came to be registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC and investigation was set in motion.

3.2 After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279/304-A was presented. Charges were framed against the petitioner, vide order dated 15.01.2014 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. Out of 11 cited witnesses, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, petitioner was examined in terms of Section 342 CrPC, in which he again denied the allegations and stated that a false and frivolous case has been foisted against him and he examined one witness in his defence.

4. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for both the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC, against the petitioner and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him.

5. Feeling aggrieved of the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court too, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the Appeal. This is how, the matter is before this Court through the medium of present criminal revision petition.

6. The judgments of both the Courts below have bee