IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 488 of 2005 Date of decision: December 15, 2010 Shyam Lal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 21.7.2000 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304- A IPC. When appealed against, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar dismissed the same on 19.2.2005. The case relates to the accident wherein the accused while driving the truck rashly and negligently struck the same against kikar tree, killing Mohinder Singh at the spot and injuring Hans Raj (PW1). On 30.5.2004, when the complainant Hans Raj along with Mohinder Singh were travelling with the accused on the four wheeler bearing registration No.HR-14-4068 were coming from Meerut. When they started from Dighal to Beri, the accused due to the influence of liquor started driving the truck rashly and negligently and struck against the kikar tree whereby the complainant received injuries and Mohinder Singh died at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement Ex.PA, FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered. The case was investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Criminal Revision No. 488 of 2005 -2- *** The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined eleven witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to assail the prosecution version has contended that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of Hans Raj and the same does not stand corroborated by any other evidence. Chowkidar Rajbir Singh, who was cited as a prosecution witness has not been examined, therefore, the benefit should go to the accused. Countering the aforesaid arguments, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment. The evidence has been appreciated in the right perspective, therefore, the judgment is liable to be maintained. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, the case appears to be fully proved. There is no denying a fact that Mohinder Singh died during the accident and the complainant Hans Raj had suffered injuries. Dr. S.P. Chug (PW4) who had medico-legally examined Mohinder Singh found the following injuries on his person :- "1. A lacerated wound 16 cms x 4 cms over left fronto parietal region of the head. The over line skin was avulsed. Bleeding was present. Advised surgeon opinion. 2. There was swelling and unformatting over left wrist joint. Advised ortho surgeon opinion.” He has proved the MLR Ex.PW4/B in this regard. Dr. G.N. Aggarwal (PW3) who had also x-rayed the complainant Hans Raj has stated that he was suffering from fracture of 5th cervical vertebra, multiple fracture of ribs of left side and haziness of left lung and proved his report Ex.PW3/B. The ocular version finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Hans Raj has also deposed about the manner in which the Criminal Revision No. 488 of 2005 -3- *** accident took place. He has categorically stated that the accused was under the influence of liquor when driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Despite the fact that he was warned not the drive the vehicle rashly and negligently, he did not bother and while driving the vehicle rashly struck against the kikar tree, as a result of which he as well as Mohinder Singh suffered injuries. Later on Mohinder Singh died. He was cross examined at length but nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony so as to shatter his testimony and impeach his credibility and reliability. As regards the argument that no conviction could be based on the testimony of the solitary witness, it is observed that Hans Raj is not only an eye witness but he having suffered injuries along with Mohinder Singh in the accident is a stamped witness. He suffered fracture on his body. He being the first informant and having no ill-will or animus against the accused could not be said to be an interested witness, therefore, there is no reason to discard his testimony as he would the last person to implicate a false person in place of the real culprit, therefore, in the given circumstances of the case, both the courts below were right in recording conviction on the basis of the statement of Hans Raj which stands corroborated by the medical evidence. As regards the argument with regard to the identification, he was occupant along Mohinder Singh in the canter which was being driven by the accused, therefore, no question of mistaken identity arises. No other argument has been raised. For the reasons recorded above, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. December 15, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge