CRR No. 1868 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1868 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.09.2010 Bhup Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikram Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Vide judgement and order dated 05.11.2009, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section as under:- Sr. No. Offence punishable under Section Convicted and sentenced for 1 279 of Indian penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2 337 of Indian Penal Code To pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. CRR No. 1868 of 2010 2 Sr. No. Offence punishable under Section Convicted and sentenced for 3 304 A of Indian Penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid judgement and order dated 05.11.2009. However, the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide judgement dated 03.07.2010. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed impugning the aforesaid judgements and order passed by both the Courts below. While challenging the aforesaid judgements and order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-examination of the important witness i.e. the Investigating officer, scriber of FIR and Inspector who made the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in witness box has caused serious dent to the prosecution version and the benefit of the same should have been extended to the petitioner. Facts of the case as put forth by the prosecution are that complainant Sohan lal got recorded his statement to the effect that he is resident of Dhansu and is an agriculturist. On 07.03.2003, there was a ceremony of teharnvi of his brother-in-law, he along with his brother Bhajan Lal son of Sahi Ram, Manohar lao son of Harphul, Krishan Lal son of Harphul and Bhagi Ram son of Shri Ganpant went in a jeep of Ramesh son of Nanu Ram bearing No. HR 20G/2056 to attend the ceremony from village Dhansu to village Kabrel. They started from village Dhansu at about 8.15 am. At about 9.00 am when they reached near village Migni Khera then a jeep bearing registration No HR 22A/7154 came at a high speed from CRR No. 1868 of 2010 3 village Jakhod Khera and the driver of the jeep hit their jeep from the right side with the result that they suffered injuries in the accident. He suffered injuries on his head and forehead, left leg and on the fingers of right leg. His brother Bhajan Lal suffered injuries on his head and on his right elbow. Manohar Lal son of Shri Harphul, Krishan Lal son of Harphul and Bhagi Ram son of Shri Ganpant got them admitted in civil Hospital, Hisar where they were medico legally examined. Bhajan Lal succumbed to his injuries received in the accident. On these broad allegations, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code. In the present case, as many as 11 witnesses were examined. PW1 Complainant Sohan, PW2 Manohar Lal and PW3 Ramesh Kumar, all deposed that the accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle in question at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner which caused accident, resulting thereof passengers sitting in the jeep suffered injuries, whereas, Bhajan Lal son of Sahi Ram died due to the injuries received in the aforesaid accident. The same was established from the statement of Dr. Devender Sindhu as well as the medico legal report exhibited PW8/C. The identity of the petitioner was also proved by the independent witness. Thus, in the facts of the present case and in view of the evidence of statement of independent witnesses as above, the non- examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the same. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may be allowed to proceed on probation. However, taking into account the fact that the menace of motor CRR No. 1868 of 2010 4 accident is on the rise in an alarming manner, the sentence of one year awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court already reduced to six months and accordingly the same is not on the higher side. Enough leniency has already been shown while awarding and reducing the sentence to six months. The prayer to release the petitioner on probation is accordingly rejected. In the present case, the petitioner was driving the vehicle in question at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. In view the above, there is no infirmity in the judgements and order passed by the both the Court below. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 28, 2010 mohan