IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2089 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 09, 2011 Jai Krishan .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 24.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1/5.5.2009 and modifying the sentence from one year to ten months under Section 304-A IPC. On 19.12.2004, Sher Singh complainant (herein referred as, 'the complainant') got his statement recorded before the police at P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak that on the said day, he along with his nephew Karambir was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-10G-0891 to Sonepat. Karambir was driving the motor cycle, whereas, he was pillion rider. After covering some distance, they parked the motor cycle on kacha path. Karambir remained sitting on the motor cycle whereas he had gone to answer the call of nature. In the meantime, the tractor being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from the Sonepat side and hit into motor cycle. As a result of which Karambir sustained multiple injuries and ultimately died while reaching P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak. Consequently, on the basis of the aforesaid statement,FIR No.20 dated 20.10.2004 was registered against the petitioner. The case was investigated and challan was presented against him. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Sher Singh (PW1), Dr. Yogesh Goel (PW2), Pardeep Kumar (PW3), HC Crl. Revision No. 2089 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Ved Parkash (PW4), Ravinder Kumar (PW5), ASI Hari Om (PW6), Ram Rattan (PW7), C. Sunil Kumar (PW8) and HC Krishan Chand (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial court recorded the judgment against the petitioner. His appeal also met with the same fate. It has been urged with vehemence that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of rashness or negligence, which was the sine qua for bringing home the charge against him. In this regard, it may be observed that the complainant Sher Singh who after parking the motor cycle was standing to answer the call of nature (urinating) quite near the road, had seen the accident being committed by the accused. The Investigating Officer took into possession the tractor and also arrested the accused. The petitioner had struck the tractor against motor cycle parked by Sher Singh on his correct side which clearly implies the negligence of the petitioner. The necessary essentials of rashness and negligence, on the part of the petitioner stand established from the testimony of Sher Singh complainant (PW1) who has categorically stated that the petitioner while driving the tractor rashly and negligently and at high speed did not bother to take care of the parked motor cycle on the kacha berm and struck against him. His testimony stands corroborated by the medical evidence also. No plausible defence has been led by the accused to prove his innocence. As both the courts have returned findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner, therefore, the scope of interference at this revisional stage is very restricted. The evidence appears to have been duly appreciated. No such illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out which may invite my interference. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that a young boy had died in an accident due to the utter negligence of the petitioner. The First Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence. No further concession could be granted to him. Dismissed in limine. September 09, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge