Crl.Revn. NO.1574 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn. NO.1574 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: March 04, 2010 Prem Rattan ...PETITIONER VS. State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.Munish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Prem Rattan was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months Section 279 of the Code. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 304-A of the Code. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that there was a Government Milk Diary, near the house of Devinder Singh. On 01.08.1998, Crl.Revn. NO.1574 of 2003 2 a TATA 407 vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-26-1157, driven by the petitioner came there. At that time, Doli aged 3 years, niece (sister's daughter) of Devinder Singh was standing by the side of a Pole near the dairy. After loading the collected milk from the dairy, the petitioner reversed the vehicle without bothering to notice that Doli was standing near the pole. In that process, Doli was run over by the rear left side tyre of the vehicle and ultimately died. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused in the Court. The accused was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Davinder Singh complainant PW1, Dr.Vishesh Kumar PW2, Balram PW3, Babu Ram PW4, Jagdish Rai Head Constable PW5, Ram Singh Head Constable, motor mechanic PW6, Azad S.Kiran Photo Studio PW7, Vijay Singh Retd. Sub Inspector PW8 and Bhoop Singh ASI PW9. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Prem Rattan denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication. No evidence was led in defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing inspite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case with his assistance. Crl.Revn. NO.1574 of 2003 3 The prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, Complainant Davinder Singh (P.W.1) has entirely supported the case of the prosecution. His evidence has been corroborated by Balram (P.W.3) to the extent that accused-Prem Rattan was present at the time of occurrence and Doli was taken to the hospital in his vehicle. While deposing further Balram (P.W.3) did not support the case of the prosecution and was got declared hostile. However, a verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependent upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses, who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. From the deposition of PW2 Dr.Vishesh Kumar, it is clear that death of Doli was due to shock and hemorrhage because of the injuries to the vital organ i.e. brain and injury No.2 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. Four wheeler was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The driving licence and registration certificate of offending vehicle was taken into possession vide seizure memo No.PW4/B. The offending vehicle was also mechanically examined by Head Constable Ran Singh vide report No.PW6/A. The site plan of occurrence is dully proved by PW9 ASI Bhoop Singh, who had prepared the site plan. In the present case, the complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution. He categorically stated that the accident took place due to negligence of driver Prem Rattan. There was no reason for the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Crl.Revn. NO.1574 of 2003 4 In view of the above, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code. The sentence awarded to the petitioner also commensurates with the offence committed by him. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. March 04, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE