Crl.Rev No.2647 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.2647 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.09.2011 Ombir Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL --- Present: Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- A.N.Jindal, J. The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 2.07.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat, acquitting the accused/respondent (herein referred as the respondent) of the offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Having scrutinised the impugned judgment, it transpires that the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of two witnesses namely Alimuddin (PW 4) and Ombir Singh (PW 5). Both are Crl.Rev No.2647 of 2010 2 contradictory on material points. Alimuddin stated that the road was not being repaired/constructed at the time of accident, whereas ASI Abhimanyu (PW 3) and Ombir Singh (PW 5) have stated that there was a kacha road and construction on road was going on. It appears that Alimuddin (PW 4) was not present at the place of occurrence. Both Alimuddin (PW 4) and Ombir (PW 5) have not stated if Prem Singh had suffered injuries and died as a result of accident. The tempo with which alleged accident took place was not produced in the court and no site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer. No medical evidence has been proved on record as such both the courts below have rightly concluded that the case against accused/respondent No.2 is not established beyond reasonable doubt. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 01.09.2011 Judge rp