Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: jagdev singh in Jagdev Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 November, 2015Matching Fragments
of Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In terms of the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2015/9.4.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at of Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 010003 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdev Singh, rt appellant-accused stands convicted of all the charged offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of `5000/- for offence punishable under the provisions of Section 304-AA IPC and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of `500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for each of the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC; and fine of `500/- for offence punishable under the provisions of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Present appeal stands filed by the appellant-accused under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
29. Be that as it may, factum of intoxication has to be proved by the prosecution by leading scientific evidence.
30. Now Dr. Vivek Anand (PW-6) states that on 12.6.2009 at about 10.45 p.m., he examined accused of Jagdev Singh, who was smelling of alcohol from his mouth.
The accusedrt was afebrile, semi-conscious and not responding to verbal commands. His blood sample was drawn and handed over to the police in a sealed pack.
41. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeal is partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.4.2015/9.4.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 010003 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdev Singh, qua the offences charged under Section 304-AA IPC and 185 of the Act are set aside. The accused stands acquitted in relation to such offences. With respect to the same, he be released from jail, if not required in relation to any other offences or case, and amount of fine, if deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. It is clarified that in relation to the offences for which he stands convicted, he has to undergo and serve the sentence.