CRR No.2461 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2461 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2011 Jaipal Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Accused/revisionist has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 26.8.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, as well as the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby accused/revisionist has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.1.2004 Gulab Singh was going to his village Urlana. He was travelling in a TATA-407 bearing registration No.HR-33G-A1287 along with other persons. The names of the passengers have been mentioned in the complaint given by him. It is further stated that TATA-407 was driven by the accused Jaipal in a rash and negligent manner. They have also warned him to drive the vehicle in a proper manner, but when they reached near Kanak Garden at about 7.30 p.m., he suddenly applied breaks and stopped the vehicle due to which, vehicle fell into the big pit. In this incident, injuries were sustained by the passengers. Police came on the spot and took all the passengers to Government Hospital, Sonepat, where Ram Mehar and CRR No.2461 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Dharambir had died. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses. Statement of accused/revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused has denied incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded his false implication. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned trial Court held accused/revisionist guilty under Sections 279/304 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on both counts. The appeal preferred by the accused/revisionist was also dismissed by learned appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have totally ignored the fact that the revisionist was not at all negligent in causing the accident and there was no material on record that the vehicle in question was being driven by the accused/revisionist at a high speed i.e. 90 kmh. He further argued that from the statements of the witnesses it is clear that the accident took place due to suddenly applying the breaks as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle but both the Courts below have ignored all these aspects and as such the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and the revisionist deserves to be acquitted. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I find that PW2, Suresh Kumar, has categorically deposed that on 18.1.2004 he was travelling in the fateful vehicle, which was being driven by Jaipal-revisionist in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accident took place and two persons died at the spot while 15 other persons received injuries. His statement is corroborated by PW1, Gulab. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of these eyewitnesses/injured. Learned trial Court after going through the evidence available on record found that the petitioner had acted in a gross negligent manner on account of which the accident took place as a result of which 17 persons travelling in the offending vehicle suffered injuries, which proved fatal to two persons. CRR No.2461 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Accused/petitioner first of all allowed 17 persons to board goods vehicle against the conditions of the permit and thereafter caused accident due to rash and negligent driving, therefore, I am not inclined to invoke revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error or law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is ample evidence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I can re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge October 13, 2011 R.S.