High CourtsSingle Bench

Harinder Singh vs The State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 January 2003 · Citation: (2003) 01 P&H CK 0187

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.L. Anand, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313, 401 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 279, 304A, 337, 427
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 437 of 1993
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 681 words

R.L. Anand, J.—This revision I am disposed of with the assistance rendered by Shri Sanjay Vashisth, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent. It had been directed against the judgment dated 15.7.1993 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who maintained the conviction and sentence under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court was one year.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.5.1986 Smt. Prem Kumari (PW2) along with her husband Roshan Lal had gone on Vicky bearing Registration No. HRW-3091 to Badkhal Lake for strolling. On return, the Vicky was being driven by Roshan Lal and Smt. Prem Kumari was occupying pillion seat. At about 10.15 A.M., the Vicky driven by Roshan Lal crossed the Railway Phatak and when it was being driven towards Mathura Road at Faridabad, a truck bearing Registration No. DEL-5447 being driven by Harinder Singh petitioner rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn, came from the side of Badkhal Lake and struck against the Vicky of Roshan Lal and Smt. Prem Kumari from behind, as a result of which they fell down. The truck dragged them for a distance of about ten paces and thereafter it was stopped by the driver. PW3 Gobind Ram took out Smt. Prem Kumari and Roshan Lal from underneath the truck. The truck was being driven by Harinder Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by PW7 Tirath Ram. The injured were brought to B.K. Hospital from where Roshan Lal was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and died there. The medical officer sent ruqa Ex.PW5/A to the police. The police recorded the statement Ex.PC of Smt. Prem Kumari, on the basis of which the case was registered. The truck was taken into possession. The truck was got mechanically examined from PW1 Tejpal Singh who gave his report Ex.PA. The Investigating Officer also arranged for the photographers. Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/4 are the photographs taken from the place of the occurrence and those photographs were taken by PW4 Shri Ved Parkash. On the completion of the investigation of the case and after the arrest of the petitioner, he was challaned u/s 279, 337, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW2 Smt. Prem Kumari complainant: PW3 Gobind Ram and PW7 Tirath Ram - the eye witness of the occurrence, besides PW1 Tejpal Singh mechanic, PW3 Ved Parkash Photographer and PW4 Raghbir Singh Head Constable - Investigating Officer and PW5 Dr. M.R. Sharma, who medico legally examined the injured.

4.

The statement of the petitioner was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. He denied those circumstances. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

5.

Learned Judicial Magistrate relying upon the story of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad who maintained the conviction of the petitioner u/s 279/337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Still feeling not satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision.

6.

I have heard the learned State counsel and with his assistance, have gone through the record of the case.

7.

The occurrence stands proved from the statements of Smt. Prem Kumari PW2 who is an injured witness and this statement is also corroborated by the statement of PW7 Tirath Ram who is an eye-witness. Their evidence is established by the medical evidence. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the story of the prosecution. Therefore, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner under all the three sections.

8.

Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence had taken place as far back as on 11th May, 1986, the substantive sentence of Harinder Singh petitioner is hereby reduced to six months.

9.

With this modification in the matter of sentence, the criminal revision stands disposed of.