2008 (7) TMI 1018

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for the offence relatable to Section 304A and simple imprisonment for three months for the other offence. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, was dismissed. 2. A revision petition was filed before the High Court questioning conviction as well as sentence, which as noted above was dismissed. 3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: On 16.6.1990, one Shri Mast Ram (PW-7) was travelling in bus bearing registration No.HTC 34 belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short 'HRTC') alongwith his wife and four children from Surgani to Pathankot. On....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC before the trial Magistrate. The Trial Magistrate found the evidence to be cogent. Relying on the evidence of father (PW7) and considering the other material on record, the Trial Court recorded the conviction as noted above. But the appellant was extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short 'Probation Act'). The State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge questioning grant of benefit under the Probation Act. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Trial Court and remitted the matter for passing appropriate sentence. Thereafter, as noted above, the learned Trial Magistrate sentenced the appellant by imposing custodial sent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. While the Magistrate, and the Additional Sessions Judge arrived on assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of bus by the accused and the High Court even though justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence reviewed the same in order to justify itself that there was evidence in support of the finding and that the finding was not perverse, came to the conclusion that the evidence established the death of the deceased was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the Supreme Court on an appeal under Article 136 refused to interfere."....