news details |
|
|
| Court upholds sentence in accident case | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, October-10 :- Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Jang Bhadur Singh Jamwal has upheld the judgment passed by City Judge Jammu on March 15, 2006 whereby the Court awarded one Year RI and file Rs 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for six month, against this judgment the Surinder Singh applicant filed this appeal seeking quashment of the judgment.
According to the police case, Police Station, Gangyal received information from reliable sources on September 29, 2002 that one bus bearing registration No. JK02Y-0222 owned by Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation, was being driven by an unknown driver very rashly, negligently and carelessly towards Pathankot at 4.30 PM when reached near Manu Bar, NHW, hit one motorcycle bearing registration No. JK02N-0673, which was being driven by Sanjeev Sharma S/O Krishan Gopal R/O H. No. 123, Rehari with Mst. Shallu Jamwal S/O Mank Pathania R/O Soliali, Himachal Pradesh A/P H.No. 253, Rehari by coming to the wrong side, as a result of which both the riders of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries on spot and the bus driver fled away after the occurrence and the dead bodies were lying on spot. On the basis of this report, the police registered the case under FIR No. 101/2002 for the commission of offence u/s 304-A RPC and commenced the investigation thereupon which finally culminated into the presentment of the challan against the appellant for offences U/Ss 279/304-A RPC. Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Jang Bhadur Singh Jamwal after hearing both the sides observed that counsel for the appellant had made an application on July 30, 2009 stating therein that the appellant is an employee of SRTC and the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. The witnesses have also been chance witnesses and were putting up at a distance of 10 to 15 kilometres away from the place of occurrence. The appellant was not driving the vehicle negligently and carelessly and finally has prayed for extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Upon this Court further observed that that application for Probation of Offenders Act had already been put on record and is being taken up today. The grounds agitated by the counsel for appellant have been considered in aforesaid paras of the judgment and the appellant has been held guilty of rash and negligent driving by the trial court as well as the judgment of the trial court has been upheld. There is no ground raised by the appellant where the Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to him. Only few lines have been said that he may be released on Probation of Offenders Act. No ground has been agitated which attracts the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, this application is rejected and upheld the sentence awarded by Trial Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
