IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2003 Date of decision: September 21, 2010 Jasbir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge has been made to to the judgment dated 20.10.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 23.3.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. The facts in nutshell are that on 15.11.1994 at about 10.30 a.m. Ramesh Kumar along with Harish Kumar was going from bus stand Murthal to Sabzi Mandi Sonepat. Kishan Lal son of Mohan Lal was going ahead of him on another scooter bearing registration No.HR-10-9050 towards vegetable market. In the meantime, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.HR-01-4737 rashly and negligently came and while going on the wrong side struck against the scooter of Kishan Lal, as a result of which he fell down and the front tyre of the truck passed over his chest, as such, he died at the spot. On the aforesaid statement of Ramesh Kumar, FIR was registered and was investigated. The Investigating Officer took both the vehicles into possession; recorded statements of the witnesses; got the vehicles mechanically tested; prepared the rough site plan; collected postmortem report and challaned the accused. The accused was charged under Section 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2003 -2- In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. O.P. Gujaraia (PW1), C. Ramesh Chander (PW2), Ramesh Kumar complainant (PW3), Megh Raj (PW4), Ashok (PW5) and ASI Subhash Chander (PW6). 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. However, no evidence was led in defence. Arguments heard. Record perused. The case is based on the testimony of the complainant Ramesh Kumar (PW3) who has categorically described the time, place and the manner in which the accident had taken place. He has categorically stated that the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HR-01-4737 rashly and negligently came and struck against the scooter of Kishan Lal and the front tyre of the truck passed over him and he died. The complainant who was also following Kishan Lal having witnessed the occurrence is the eye witness. He has no animus or enmity against the accused for deposing against him. His testimony finds corroboration from the medical evidence. The postmortem report Ex.PA proved on record also confirmed the fact that there were injuries on the chest and there was a fracture of ribs. Since it was day time occurrence, Ramesh Kumar had the opportunity to see the accused, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. The accused while taking the truck on the wrong side hit the scooterist and allowed the front tyre of the truck to pass over Kishan Lal highlights the speed and rashness. Learned counsel has urged that there is no evidence that Ramesh Kumar did not state that the accused was driving the truck rashly and negligently, but, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has pointed out from the statement of Ramesh Kumar that the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HR-01-4737 rashly and negligently struck against the scooter driven by Kishan Lal. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer was not examined and the site plan was not exhibited. In order to buttress the argument he has relied upon the judgment delivered in case Thana Ram v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 678; Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 260 and Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab 2010 (2) Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2003 -3- R.C.R. (Criminal) 539. In those cases, for want of examining sufficient evidence, investigation could not be proved. But, I do not agree with this contention as in the instant case, sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the medical as well as documentary evidence collected during investigation. Dr. O.P. Gujaria (PW1) has proved the postmortem report Ex.PA, permit valid up to 18.2.1995; insurance certificate valid up to 13.2.1994 and the driving licence were also taken into possession vide the recovery memo Ex.PW1/A which was prepared by ASI Ram Kishan and Ramesh Chander (PW2) identified his signatures on the same. Ramesh Kumar complainant (PW3) is the eye witness of the occurrence who got recorded the FIR. Ashok son of Suraj Bhan (PW5) identified the dead body of Kishan Lal and Megh Raj (PW4) proved the receipt of the dead body. ASI Subhash Chander (PW6) proved the FIR Ex.PW6/A as well as endorsement Ex.PW6/B. The Investigating Officer was not an eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, he could not be said to be a material witness particularly when the material evidence collected by him during investigation stands proved by the other witnesses. As such, non examination of the Investigating Officer in the instant case is not fatal to the prosecution case. As a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused is a first offender and having already undergone about five months of the substantive sentence must be extended some leniency. Having pondered over the argument and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 15.11.1994 and the accused has suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending against him since then and that he has already undergone about five months of the substantive sentence, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be shown to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the revision petition, the sentence passed against him is modified and the same is reduced to one year without alteration in the sentence of fine. September 21, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge