Criminal Revision No. 783 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 783 of 2006. Date of Decision: 14.3.2011. Abhey Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Challenge is to the judgment dated March 29th, 2006 passed by District Judge, Narnaul affirming the judgment of conviction dated March 12th, 2005 and order of sentence dated March 14th, 2005 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahendergarh whereby petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In Default 279 IPC SI for 2 months Rs.500/- SI for 15 days 304-A IPC SI for 12 months Rs.1000/- SI for 1 month Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on August 6th, 2001 Satbir (PW-2)-author of First Information Report (Exhibit PW-6/A) along with Paveen (PW-3) and Sunil (deceased) boarded a jeep bearing No. HR-23-8637 from village Buchawas for going to Mahendergarh. The jeep was being driven by the petitioner. The deceased was on the foot board of the jeep. He was hanging outside and struck against a passerby. As a result thereof, the deceased fell down on the road. He was brought to Primary Health Center, Rampura where he was medically examined by Dr. Ashok Yadav Criminal Revision No. 783 of 2006 2 (PW-4) who found four injuries on his person. The Medical Office referred him to the Post Graduate Institution of Medical Sciences, Rohtak but he was brought to VIMHANS Hospital, New Delhi where he was declared brought dead. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below on the grounds that, (i) the prosecution failed to prove that accident occurred on account of negligence of the petitioner rather it was the deceased who was negligent because it is the case of the prosecution that he was standing on the foot board of the jeep and was hanging outside it; (ii) the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries received in the occurrence because no post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased, a fact which is not in dispute. 4. In this case, two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. These were: Satbir (PW-2) and Paarveen (PW-3). Both of them have stated that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was standing on the foot board of the jeep and was hanging. He struck against a passerby. From this evidence, it is evident that Sunil was of-course negligent while he was standing on the foot board of the jeep and hanging out of it. There is no evidence on record that jeep struck against anybody and as a result thereof, the deceased fell down. It is also not in dispute that post- mortem examination of the deceased was not conducted. Otherwise too, in the absence of post-mortem examination, it is not proved that the deceased died due to the injuries received by him in the accident. An over all view of the scenario suggests that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the petitioner. In view of this, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, the revision is accepted and the judgments under challenge are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. 14.3.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE