IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.948 of 2000 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Daya Kishan. ....... Petitioner through Shri Shiv Kumar, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 11.8.1999 and order of sentence dated 12.8.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. The petitioner was sent up to face trial in a case arising out of F.I.R.No.178 dated 6.7.1996 registered at Police Station, Nuh, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, `the Crl.Revision Petition No.948 of 2000 -2- .... I.P.C.') on the basis of the statement of PW1-Ram Kishan. It was alleged that on 6.7.1996 at about 4.30 A.M., the petitioner, who was driver of truck no. HR-29-C-6155, had crushed to death deceased-Dudh Nath by his rash and negligent driving. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged against him. It accordingly sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and two months for offences under Section 304-A and 279 of the I.P.C., respectively. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was present in his truck for the purpose of loading it at Stone Crusher of Bhagwati Grit Industries and that the accident in which the deceased died, had occurred because the loading machine was capable of moving on all the four directions and the negligence, if any, was that of the driver of the loading machine which put the stones in the truck and not on account of his negligent driving of the truck which was under his control because the same was stationed and was in the process of loading. He referred to the evidence on record including the post mortem report of the deceased which has revealed that the deceased died on account of the accident at the Stone Crusher because of the stone crushing machine. He further referred to the testimony of eye witnesses to show that the loading machine could move Crl.Revision Petition No.948 of 2000 -3- .... in both directions, i.e., forward and backward and also the fact that the statements of the eye witnesses was not specific regarding the causing of the accident by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that there was overwhelming evidence on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the whole record. A perusal of the rough site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by the investigating officer does not show the manner in which the accident had occurred. There is no mentioning therein about the positioning of the truck which was alleged to be driven by the petitioner. In fact, it only gives the description of the place including the place where the dead body was found on a stretcher. Both the alleged eye witnesses, i.e., PW1-Ram Kishan and PW2-Sattar have stated that the accident had occurred when the truck was being loaded and that the petitioner was asked to move the truck forward and instead he moved it backward. This by itself does not constitute the negligence of the truck driver, i.e., the petitioner. Admittedly, the truck was being loaded with stones and, therefore, there was an equal duty of the persons present in the surroundings and who were involved in the process of loading to take care and precaution in order to avoid any accident. In this view of the matter, the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. does not stand established against the petitioner as the ingredients thereof are not Crl.Revision Petition No.948 of 2000 -4- .... established. The petitioner, in any case, could not have been assumed to be driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner at a public path way because it was being loaded with stones at a Stone Crusher and that cannot be construed to be a path way. Therefore, the conviction under Section 279 of the I.P.C. as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. Similarly, the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 304-A of the I.P.C. is not established as rash and negligent driving with which the petitioner has been accused of, for causing the death of the deceased has not been proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are upset and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge against him. September 10,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge