In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2003 Date of decision: December 01, 2010 Ved Parkash .. Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 17.1.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused- respondent (herein referred as, 'the respondent') under Sections 279/304-A IPC. However, the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 3.4.2002 while accepting his appeal acquitted him of the charges framed against him. The State has not preferred any revision petition, yet, Ved Parkash has preferred this petition. The allegations are that on 10.11.1994 at about 4.00 p.m. the respondent while driving bus bearing registration No.HR-26A-6470 of Haryana Roadways came from behind and struck on the left side of Mandeep, a child, causing him injuries and ultimately he died. On completion of the investigation a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Ved Parkash (PW1), Har Narain (PW2), Azad (PW3), Dr. Nidhi Jain (PW4), Bishamber Dayal (PW5) and ASI/IO Hardwari Lal (PW6). Ved Parkash (PW1) being the real uncle of Mandeep, is an interested witness. His presence at the place is doubtful. The other witnesses are co-residents of the village of Ved Parkash. Though Azad Singh (PW3) is stated to be an eye witness to the occurrence, but his name has not been disclosed as the person present at the spot in the FIR. Har Naraian (PW2) has given an improved version. He has stated that Om Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2003 -2- Parkash Pandit and Azad are two different persons, whereas, Azad (PW3) has not given his name as Om Parkash Pandit. Even Ved Parkash (PW1) during his cross examination has admitted that only he along with Har Naraian were present at the scene of occurrence. The FIR does not contain the name of the accused. His identification for the first time in the court is of no consequence. No test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. The witnesses state only that the bus was at a high speed, but they do not know as to what was the actual speed of the bus. The manner in which the occurrence took place has not been described by the witnesses. The witnesses state that Mandeep an eight years old child after shopping was going on the metalled road, on the national highway at Bhaini Maharajpur bus stop, in the meantime, the bus came from behind and struck against the left side of Mandeep thereby causing the accident. But it is not explained, as to in what manner the respondent was rash and negligent. It has not been disclosed by the witnesses if he came on the wrong side; lost control or made wrong judgment. The First Appellate Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No such illegality or irregularity much less perversity has been pointed out so as to dub the judgment as illegal. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 01, 2010 (A. N. Jindal) deepak Judge