The appellant was allegedly drunk.
However, he admitted the accident.
The maximum sentence imposed was one year.
1988 in short the MV Act .
The charges were framed and put to the appellant, to which he pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
PW2 Dile Ram injured , PW4 Rattan Lal, PW5 Rattan Chand injured son of Salig Ram, PW6 Surjit Singh, PW 13 Rakesh Kumar, PW8 Lekh Ram, PW 10 Rattan Chand injured , PW16 Rakesh Kumar injured and PW 18 Sagar Singh were occupants of the truck, but they broadly did number support the case of the prosecution, as alleged.
Nathu Ram PW 1 is a companystable, who was on his duty to execute the processes.
When it reached near village Kacherha, on the public way, at about 11 AM, he lost its companytrol, companysequently it went off the road, rolled down in the field, leaving Pratap Singh Pinku, Kuldeep Singh Jogi, dead on the spot and Kamal Kishore and Manohar Lal injured persons died in the hospital at Bhoranj later, due to accidental injuries, whereas, out of about fifty other members of the marriage party, who were the occupants of the said truck, Harish Kumar, Amin Chand, Rajesh Kumar, Rattan Chand, Desh Raj, Tej Ram, Rakesh Kumar, Hem Chand, Surjit Singh, Mahant Ram, Prakash Chand, Pawan Kumar, Shambhu Rani, Paras Ram, Ranbir Singh, Prem Chand, Prakash Chand and Sanjay, sustained simple injuries, whereas, Anil Kumar, Joginder, Suresh Kumar, another Joginder Singh, Ishwar Dass, Nand Lal, Lekh Ram and Lekh Raj sustained grievous injuries.
He is an eye witness of the said accident.
The said truck was carrying a marriage party.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 15.4.1993 the accused appellant was the driver of the truck HIU 3837.
State of Himachal Pradesh preferred an appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt and directed companyviction of the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A IPC and imposed various sentences, which were directed to run companycurrently.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that there was numberrash or negligent driving as claimed by the prosecution.
The case was registered.
He and the cleaner of the truck had absconded.
Rup Lal PW3 was an occupant and the father of bridegroom Kuldeep Singh deceased , whose marriage party was traveling in the said truck.
The appellant was acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur.
The police took the photographs of the spot, prepared the site plan, truck was mechanically examined, the postmortem reports and the MLCs of the injured were taken into possession and after recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was presented in the Court, for the trial against the respondent.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellant faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
