IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2491 of 2003 Date of decision: September 21, 2010 Mahabir .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 11.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 1.4.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 30.6.1996, at about 6.30/7.00 p.m. the complainant Mangat Ram (herein referred as, 'the complainant') was standing in front of the godown near Jindal Bhawan and was talking to one Raj Kumar. His son Pawan and grand son Raja @ Ajay were coming from the side of grain market Rohtak. In the meantime, the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HNS-543 rashly and negligently came and struck against his grand son Raja @ Ajay who fell down and his right leg was crushed. The truck was stopped, the accused disclosed his name and parentage and he was found under the influence of liquor. However taking the benefit of crowd the accused fled away. The injured was removed to PGIMS, Rohtak for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. He was charged under Sections 279/337 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Om Parkash (PW1), Mangat Ram complainant (PW2), HC Des Raj Criminal Revision No. 2491 of 2003 -2- (PW3), Gudayal (PW4), C. Subhash (PW5), Dr. P.D. Garg (PW6), HC Bishamber Dayal (PW7), Dr. S.P. Chugh (PW8) and Balwan Singh Record Keeper PGIMS Rohtak (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The star witness in this case is the complainant who while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has supported the prosecution version on all material points. He has categorically stated that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the accused. It has also come on record that the accused was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. The witness has withstood the test of cross examination and nothing fruitful could be elicited which could help the accused. The ocular version of the prosecution finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Dr. P.D. Garg who medically examined the accused found that he was mildly under the influence of liquor. Dr. S.P. Chugh (PW8) has proved the injuries suffered by Raja @ Ajay vide his report Ex.PW8/A. There are concurrent findings of fact returned by both the courts regarding the guilt of the accused. Having examined the impugned judgment, this court is of the considered opinion that no exception could be made to the view expressed by both the courts below. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae so as to disturb the findings of the trial court. No grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment are made out. However, it is made clear that the sentence awarded by the trial court would run concurrently. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the revision petition the same is dismissed. Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. September 21, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge