Crl. Rev. No.447 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.447 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.02.2011 Ganga Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 07.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence order passed by the trial court was affirmed. The petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 2000/- under Section 304-A IPC vide order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani vide Crl. Rev. No.447 of 2011 2 his judgment dated 07.02.2011. Hence, the present revision petition. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below awarded the sentence on the basis of statement of the interested witnesses. PW-3 and PW-4 are the near relation of the deceased and from their statement, it is clearly established that they were not present at the spot. Secondly, there are major discrepancies in their statement and lastly, a false case has been registered. It is further prayed that the petitioner be granted probation. Heard. The facts, in short, are that at about 3.30 p.m at Tigrana School, the offending truck No.HR-26A/3842, which was being driven by the present petitioner, hit the motor cycle of Ajay Kumar from behind. Due to impact, the motor cycle fell on one side and Ajay Kumar on other side of the road and the left front wheel of the truck ran over the head of Ajay Kumar thereby crushing it. As a result of which, Ajay Kumar died on spot. The complainant (PW-3) along with Wazir (PW-4) were going from Village Tigrana to Bhiwani on their motor cycle. Ajay Kumar was driving the motor cycle ahead of them. They are eye-witnesses to the accident. The prosecution examined the relevant witnesses. Besides PW-3 complainant Eye witness-Wazir also appeared and supported the prosecution story. The statement of the eye-witness cannot be ignored just because they are related. As per the statement, they were just behind the motor cycle being driven by the deceased. The identification of the accused was not necessary as the eye-witnesses have specifically stated that they had managed to stop the truck and apprehend the driver. The driver disclosed his name as Ganga Ram. Thereafter, the eye witnesses got busy with the injured, the driver ran away from the spot. In the Crl. Rev. No.447 of 2011 3 complaint itself, the name, parentage and address of the accused were mentioned. It has come in evidence that the accused crossed the motor cycle of the complainant and then hit the motor cycle of Ajay Kumar, since deceased, from behind. Even as per the photographs placed on record as Exhibit P-1 to P-7, the conclusion that the same show that the truck had hit the motor cycle from behind is evident. The body of Ajay Kumar was thrown at a considerable distance and after the accident, the truck stopped at some distance away from that place. This shows that the truck was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The argument that PW-3 and PW-4 are related and there is discrepancy in their statement has been discussed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani vide order dated 07.02.2011 in paras 26 and 28 as under:- “ 26. I am again not convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. It is the admitted case that PW2- Jai Parkash is a constable of Haryana Police and Ajay Kumar deceased was his brother-in-law. There is also no dispute that PW-3 Ram Parkash is the real brother of PW-4 Wazir Singh is the cousin of PW-2 Jai Parkash. However, it is pointed out that there is no evidence on the file to show that PW-3 and PW-4 have given a tutored version. Their statements cannot be disbelieved simply because they happens to be related with the deceased. Both PW-3 and PW-4 were following Ajay Kumar on their respective motor cycle and they were going from Tigrana to Bhiwani when the accident in question had taken place. There is nothing to show that PW-3 and PW-4 had not witnessed the accident. On the other hand, their statements inspire confidence and there is nothing to disbelieve them. Crl. Rev. No.447 of 2011 4 27. xxx xxx xxx 28. However, as far as the contradictions appearing in the statement of PW-4 regarding the accused having fled away of the truck is concerned, it has already been pointed out that it seems to be slip of tongue because PW-4 himself has categorically admitted that both the vehicles were recovered by the police from the spot. This shows PW-4 has stated about the accused having escaped from the place of accident thereby leaving behind the truck on the spot and that is why it was recovered from the spot by the police after taking the photographs. Hence, there is no material contradiction in the statements of PW-3 and PW-4. They have witnessed the accident. Hence, their statements are believed.” No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the finding as above. In view of the above, there is no merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. The argument with respect to the quantum of sentence, the simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304-A IPC and for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC, is already on the lower side and hence, there is no justification for reducing the same. As per the finding, the petitioner had run away from the spot after dodging the eye witnesses and was arrested subsequently. As such, his conduct does not entitle him for probation. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet