In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1658 of 2001 Date of Decision:February 05, 2009 Ram Kanwar ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Ram Kanwar- petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 18.5.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat Vide order of even date passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 300/- for an offence under Section 279 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 300/- for an offence under Section 337 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 19.10.2001. Crl. Revision No. 1658 of 2001 -2- Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution version is that on the fateful day i.e. 5.3.1993 ASI Mehar Singh, the then investigating officer, (PW4) along with other police officials was present within the revenue estate of village Kalupur Mor and there complainant Jai Pal Singh (PW6) met him and got his statement recorded alleging therein that his residential house is situated near Kalupur Octroi Post and on the said date at about 4-00 p.m. he along with his brother Azad Singh and constable Balbir Singh (PW5), were present in the shop of one Ram Kumar and his father Puran and uncle Sardar were sitting on the cot out side their house. There all of a sudden a bus of Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HNX-951 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of bus stand and struck his father as well as uncle. He tried to rescue them and in the said process he also sustained injuries. Unfortunately his father as well as uncle succumbed to the injuries at the spot and taking advantage of the situation the driver of the bus escaped from the place of occurrence.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Prosecution had failed to Crl. Revision No. 1658 of 2001 -3- prove its case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in case, the conviction of the petitioner is liable to be upheld, he be released on probation. Learned State counsel, on the other hand has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case . Two persons had died due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Accident in this case had taken place on 5.3.1993 at about 4-00 p.m. As per the eye witness account, Sardara and Puran were sitting on a cot in front of their house. The petitioner drove the bus, in question, in rash and negligent manner and ran over his bus on the said persons who were sitting on a cot. PW-3-Sat Narain has deposed that on the alleged day of occurrence, petitioner was on duty as a driver on the bus, in question, from 7.15 a.m. to 6-00 p.m. The Investigating Officer PW-4, Mehar Singh ASI has deposed with regard to the registration of FIR, in question, on the basis of the statement of complainant. He inspected the spot and carried out the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the inquest report with regard to the dead bodies of the deceased. Both the dead bodies were then sent for post mortem examination. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW4/C with regard to the place of accident. Bus, in question, was taken in possession from the spot vide recovery memo Ex. PW4/E. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. From the statements of the eye witnesses i.e. PW-6-Complainant Jaipal, PW-5, Constable Balbir Singh, it stands established on record that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, two persons had died who were merely sitting on a cot in front of their house. The bus, in question, was Crl. Revision No. 1658 of 2001 -4- recovered from the spot. The photographs on record also reveal that the bus after the accident had struck against a tree on the extreme left side of the road. The fact that the petitioner was on duty with the bus, in question, on the alleged date of occurrence, is sufficient to hold that the bus, in question was being driven by the petitioner. Accordingly, the courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 337, 304A IPC. Since due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, two persons have died who were just sitting in front of their house, it is not a fit case where the petitioner can be given the benefit of probation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 05, 2009 PARAMJIT