IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2001 Date of Decision :- March 02, 2009 Javed ....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL Present:- Sh R.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Ritu Punj, Senior DAG Haryana. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is a revision against the judgment dated 15.10.2001 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, affirming the judgment/order dated 27.7.2000/28.7.2000 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh, whereby he convicted Javed Khan son of Hassan Mohd. under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. Under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Under Section 337 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 IPC, 15 days under Section 337 IPC and one month under Section 338 IPC. 2 Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2001 The case of the prosecution is that on 14.5.1997 on receiving a ruqa from the Primary Health Centre, Tauru, Head Constable Mahabir Singh went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Mohammadin resident of Village Blai. Mohammadin stated, that he along with Juber and Sabir were employed as labourers on Dumber No.HYU-2475. Tayyub was driver of the dumper. At about 10.30 a.m., the dumper was going loaded with stone which was being driven by Tayyub. On reaching the cement factory, another dumper bearing No.HR38A-0899 came from the opposite direction. The dumper coming from opposite direction was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the dumper on which complainant Mohammadin and others were sitting. Mohammdin and Juber received injuries. The person driving the dumper coming from the opposite direction was Javed. FIR was registered under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Mohammaddin PW1, Sabir PW2, Constable Ram Dhan PW3, Juber Khan PW4, SI Ram Chander PW5, Constable Munshi Ram PW6, HC Dharam Pal PW7, Pawan Kumar Photographer PW8, ASI Mahabir Singh (I.O.) PW9, Dr. Vijay Diwaker PW10 and Dr. B.B.Aggarwal PW11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court on several grounds. He has stated, that the identity of the accused was not established. Both complainant Mohammadin PW1, Sabir PW2, the eye witnesses to the occurrence and injured Juber Khan PW4 have categorically stated, that Javed was the one, who was driving Dumper No.HR38A-0899. 3 Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2001 There was no need for an identification parade, as the petitioner had been identified. All the three witnesses to the occurrence i.e. Mohammadin PW1, Sabir PW2 and Juber Khan PW4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and also have been injured in the occurrence. Nothing has been suggested to these witnesses, that they were falsely implicating the petitioner for certain reasons. I do not find any infirmity in the judgments of the learned trial Court and the appellate Court. Conviction of the petitioner is maintained. Sentence of the petitioner is modified to that already undergone. With the above modification in sentence, revision petition is dismissed. March 02, 2009 (MEHTAB S.GILL) SKArora JUDGE