-1- Criminal Revision No.1769 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1769 of 2001. Date of Decision: April 09, 2010. Balraj Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Balraj Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter -2- Criminal Revision No.1769 of 2001. referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court while reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from two years to six months. Hence this revision petition by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the present case, which was launched at the instance of complainant Meenakshi, are that on 23.4.1991, complainant Meenkshi, Monika (deceased) and Pooja were going to their school on cycles. Complainant Meenakshi and Pooja were on one cycle while Monika (deceased) was on a separate cycle. When they were present near the Railway Station at Public Dharam Kanta, a tractor trolley, which was being driven by petitioner Balraj Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Prem Nagar. The tractor trolley first hit with the cycle of Monika and then with the cycle of complainant Meenakshi, due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. After that, they were got admitted in the hospital at Karnal. Monika succumbed to the injuries suffered by her in the accident. After completion of investigation and due formalities, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in Court against the accused. The petitioner-accused was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. -3- Criminal Revision No.1769 of 2001. At the trial, the prosecution examined Lachhman Dass 9P.W.1), Nathu Ram (P.W.2), Hira Singh (P.W.3), complainant Meenakshi (P.W.4), eye-witness Pooja (P.W.5), Chandgi Ram (P.W.6) and Assistant Sub Inspector Jai Parkash (P.W.7). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner pleaded innocence and false implication. Balbir Singh (D.W.1) was examined by the petitioner in his defence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Complainant Meenakshi, in her deposition in Court as P.W.4, has narrated the prosecution version, as mentioned above. Her statement gets complete corroboration from the statement of the other eye-witness, namely, Pooja (P.W.5). Meenakshi (P.W.4) had herself suffered injuries in the accident. Thus, she is the stamped witness of the prosecution. Both Meenakshi (P.W.4) and Pooja (P.W.5), deposed that it was the accused who was driving the tractor trolley in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accident occurred. Both Meenakshi and Pooja had no reason to depose falsely against the accused. Both Meenakshi and Pooja, at the time of accident, were of the age of 13/14 years. It cannot be believed that they would falsely name the petitioner as the driver of the tractor trolley in case he was not driving the same. Meenakshi (P.W.4) and Pooja (P.W.5) are the natural witnesses. As noticed above, they were going to school on one -4- Criminal Revision No.1769 of 2001. cycle along with Monika (deceased), who was on a separate cycle. Both of them were subjected to a searching cross- examination by the counsel for the petitioner in the trial Court, but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could in any way affect the veracity of the version furnished by them. In fact, during the course of arguments, no serious challenge could be posed to the prosecution case by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which otherwise stands proved on record by the cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution. In view of the above, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Section 304-A of the Code. His sentence of rigorous imprisonment has already been reduced by the lower appellate Court to six months from two years. 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. April 09, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE