Crl. Revision No.2600 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2600 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 Tapan Partap Malik ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL --- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana, Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the complainant --- A.N.Jindal, J. Trial court vide judgment dated 7/10.11.2009 had convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under section 279 IPC, to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 304-A IPC as well as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He was also sentenced Crl. Revision No.2600 of 2010 2 to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate court while seeing no merit, dismissed the same. In nutshell, factual matrix of the case is that on receipt of a VT message on 14.06.23008 in Police Station DLF, Phase-II, Gurgaon to the effect that three young boys had died on the National Highway No.8 on account of accident, ASI Raj Pal (PW 15) along with other police officials reached the spot where one Rohit Michael (PW 4) a resident of Gurgaon, disclosed to ASI Raj Pal that he is an employee of Saveez Air Lines, Air Port, New Delhi. On 14.06.2008, after doing his duty, he was returning in his car at about 2.30 AM in the night and when he crossed at Shanker Chowk Flyover then the he came across a car bearing No.DL-4CAV/0947. When the petitioner while overtaking his car had reached in front of Converges building, he had lost the control of the vehicle, resultantly it struck with the right side divider and overturned. Three occupants of the car received serious injuries and head of one of the boys was separated from the body. The boys had died at the spot. He further disclosed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PW 4/A made by the complainant, a case was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation challan was presented in court. Crl. Revision No.2600 of 2010 3 The petitioner was charged under sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Then again vide order dated 30.10.2008 charge was amended so as to add sections 181 and 185 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges against the petitioner, the prosecution examined Daya Nand Singhar (PW 1), Gautam Malhotra (PW 2), Rakesh Kumar Yadav (PW 3), Rohit Michael, complainant (PW 4), Hunny Mahajan (PW 5), Dr.Hazari Lal (PW 5), Dr.R.K.Kaushal, (PW 6), Sankalp an eye witness (PW 8), HC Sandeep Kumar (PW 9), Dr.Sunita Rathee (PW 10), Constable Pawan Kumar (PW 11), EHC Ram Dhan (PW 12), Constable Data Ram (PW 13), Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW 14) and ASI Rajpal (PW 15). However, since the prosecution could not conclude its evidence despite the several opportunities, therefore, the court closed the evidence by order. When examined under section 313 Cr.PC, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, in his defence, he examined Rajender Photographer (DW 1) and Vimal Mahajan (DW 2). Trial resulted into conviction. Appeal was also answered in negative. Heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for he petitioner raised multi-fold contentions including that it is a case of mistaken identity. Presence of Rohit Michael (PW 4) at the time of occurrence is doubtful. The Crl. Revision No.2600 of 2010 4 element of rashness and negligence has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. Learned counsel has also raised doubt about the manner in which the petitioner was arrested. Evidence of Hunny Mahajn (PW 5) is unreliable. Having pondered over the contentions, the present case stands duly established from the testimonies of Rohit Michael (PW 4) and Hunny Mahajan (PW 5) who have specifically stated that the petitioner was driving his car rashly and negligently. Hunny Mahajan had attended a celebration party in which the deceased and the petitioner were enjoying drinks. He has stated that the accused had taken drinks before driving the car. Dr.Hazari Lal (PW 6) who had examined the accused on 14.6.2008, has also supported the fact with regard to taking of liquor by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and was taken by Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW 14) from there and he had handed over him to ASI Raj Pal. Identity as established by Rohit Michael cannot be challenged as the petitioner was arrested from the spot. Sankalp (PW 8) had seen the accused coming out from the driver seat of the offending vehicle and there are no reasons to discard his testimony. ASI Raj Pal (PW 5) has given the details of the complete investigation. Presence of Rohit Michael cannot be doubted. He has given minute details of the occurrence and withstood the test of cross-examination. He has given the reasons for his being present at the spot. He is an independent witness and had no enmity with the accused for falsely implicating him in the case. Defence evidence as led by the Crl. Revision No.2600 of 2010 5 prosecution is untenable. That apart, Dr.R.K.Kaushal, Assistant Director, FSL, Madhuban who had visited the spot on 20.6.2008 and had examined the offending vehicle i.e. Car No.DL-4CAV-0947 in Police Station, DLF-II, Gurgaon and had taken photographs, has opined vide report Ex.PW 7/A that the accident had taken place due to over speed and poor condition of the tyres of the vehicle and the driver side tyre got burst after hitting the divider wall. He has stated that driver side and its surrounding area was in tact and rest of the vehicle was damaged which also indicates the chances of survival of the driver. Thus, this evidence also supports the prosecution version that the petitioner had survived, whereas the other occupants had died. This witness also refutes the defence version that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner but it had taken place only due to bursting of tyre. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the judgment does not suffer from any manifest illegality much less perversity warranting interference by this court. Three young lives were lost due to rashness and negligence of the petitioner, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence also. No merit. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 27.09.2011 Judge rp