Criminal Revision No.1334 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1334 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Kundan Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sirsa. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 279 IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.700/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run Criminal Revision No.1334 of 2002 2 concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 3.7.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. The conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the Appellate Court. However, sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to six months under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “In brief, the prosecution story is that on 24.1.1993 on receipt of a ruqa from General Hospital, Sirsa concerning Harphool and Jia Lal, ASI Ram Singh reached General Hospital, Sirsa. However, the doctor opined both the injured unfit to make statement. On the way, Prem Kumar met the police party and his statement was recorded. Case was investigated. During the course of investigation, statement of Atma Ram was recorded wherein he alleged that today at about 8-10 p.m. when he was going from Hissaria Chowk towards Arya Smaj Road, a tractor make Veer Partap alongwith trolley came from behind being driven by a mauna person, whose name later on was found to be Kundan Lal, resident of Dabwali road, Sirsa who by driving his tractor in a rash and negligent manner struck the same against Harphool Singh and his cycle which he was holding in his hand, as Criminal Revision No.1334 of 2002 3 a result of which, he received injuries in his chest, hands and leg and his cycle was also broken. The tractor driver haulted his tractor by going ahead. However, after some time, the accused out of fear fled from the scene. Harphool Singh was removed to hospital by his son Narender and one Sushil Kumar, who were present at the spot. He tried to stop the tractor driver but the tractor driver moved the tractor. He chased him on his cycle by making noise. The tractor driver by driving his tractor in rash and negligent manner ran away via Civil Hospital Road, Arya Smaj Road, Old Bus Stand, Sangwan Chowk and Balmiki Chowk. Just after turning on the Civil Hospital Road, he ran over a rickshaw puller. His rickshaw was broken and rickshaw puller received injuries. Thereafter, the accused struck his tractor to a bajaj scooter before Civil Hospital. In this way, the accused by causing accident fled alongwith his tractor towards Rania Road. He turned back due to darkness and thereafter went to the house of Harphool Singh, Advocate. His condition was inquired and by making arrangement of vehicle, he was removed to Civil Hospital, Sirsa for treatment. He was also along with them. He has come to take medicine on the shop where police party met him. Doctor reported three injuries in the MLR to Criminal Revision No.1334 of 2002 4 Harphool Singh. A case has already been registered in this connection. ASI Ram Singh investigated the case. Site was inspected. Photographs of the scene of occurrence were got conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the death of injured in the hospital, Section 304-A IPC was added in the case. After completion of investigation, challan was put in the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The complainant had not supported the prosecution case. In the same series of accident the petitioner was involved in two more cases and he had been acquitted in both the said cases. As such, he was liable to be acquitted in this case. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that Narender Kumar (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar (PW-7) had duly supported the prosecution case. In the other two criminal cases, the petitioner was acquitted as the prosecution witnesses had not supported the prosecution case. The accident in the present case had occurred on 24.1.1993 at about 8.30 p.m. The petitioner was driving a tractor trolley and it struck against the bicycle of Harphool Singh. As a result of this Harphool Singh died. Narender Kumar (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar (PW-7) have deposed with regard to the manner of accident. The said witnesses have also deposed that the tractor in Criminal Revision No.1334 of 2002 5 question was driven by petitioner Kundan Lal. Although the complainant has not supported the prosecution case, yet it is duly proved from the testimony of Narender Kumar (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar (PW-7). Both the eye witnesses had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. As per the prosecution case the petitioner, when he tried to escape from the scene on his tractor, caused two more accidents. In the said cases the petitioner was acquitted of the charge framed against him as the prosecution witnesses had not supported the prosecution story. However, in the present case, the eye witnesses Narender Kumar (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar (PW-7) have duly supported the prosecution case and their statements being natural inspired confidence. Both the Courts below have gone through the evidence on record and have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The impugned judgments, thus, do not call for any interference. Accordingly the present revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 24, 2009 anita