In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1090 of 2001 Date of Decision:March 16, 2009 Ram Ridh ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. K.S.Dhanora,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Ram Ridh -Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 20.7.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. Vide order of even date passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Hisar, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were order to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated Crl. Revision No. 1090 of 2001 -2- 17.7.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story as noticed by the learned appellate court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “Facts of the case are that present case was registered on the basis of statement of Savitri wife of Surja Ram caste Bishnoi resident of Khasa Mahajanan. She alleged that she was resident of the said village. She was married to Surja Ram son of Har Lal of the said village about 25 years ago. Out of the said wedlock one female child was borne to her. Her female child was of 9 months at that time. On the day of occurrence at about 10-30 a.m. she along with her husband Surja Ram was taking their cattle to enable them to drink water. In the meantime accused Ram Ridh of the same village came there driving his vehicle without any registration number, rashly and negligently. The same hit against her. She along with her female child (daughter) was taken to Civil Hospital, Agroha while on the way her daughter expired due to injuries sustained by her in the said accident. After completion of investigation challan was put up in the trial court against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-7-Savitri and PW-8 Surja Ram. Learned State counsel on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution case is duly proved by the complainant as well as her husband Crl. Revision No. 1090 of 2001 -3- Surja Ram, PW-8. Courts below have rightly relied upon the testimony of the said witnesses. In the present case, accident had occurred on 16.2.1992 at about 10-30 /11-00 a.m. PW-7, Savitri deposed that on the date of accident, she was going on foot along with her daughter in her lap. In the meantime, tractor driven by the petitioner-Ram Ridh came in a negligent manner and struck against her. As a result of this, her daughter suffered injuries on her head from the front tyre of the tractor. Her daughter succumbed to her injuries. Statement of PW-7 is duly corroborated by her husband-Surja Ram, who appeared in the witness box as PW-8. The said witnesses had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. Moreover, the said witnesses would not shield the right culprit and involve the petitioner falsely in this case. Both PW-1 Rai Shab and PW-2 Ram Partap have not supported the prosecution case yet the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 being natural inspire confidence. The courts below have rightly placed reliance on the testimony of PW-7 and PW-8. The courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 16, 2009 PARAMJIT