Vijender Singh vs State of Haryana

H.K. Sandhu, J.—This revision petition is against the judgment dated 15.10.1986 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad, maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, for offences under 304A and 279, Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the case are that on 20.5.1984 Jagat Singh along with his two sons, Hardeep and Gurmeet, was going to answer the call of nature. At about 9.00 a.m. when they reached near Y.M.C.A. Chowk, truck bearing No. HRC 4855 came from the opposite direction. It was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner did not blow any horn. The truck hit against Gurmeet causing him multiple injuries on his head and other parts of body as a result of which Gurmeet died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Sohan Singh. The matter was reported to Sub-Inspector Vishnu Kumar who reached the spot while patrolling the area and the petitioner was apprehended at the spot. After investigation challan was presented against the petitioner.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge under Sections 304A and 279, Indian Penal Code and contended that he was falsely involved in the case but considering the evidence led by the prosecution the trial court held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence u/s 304A, Indian Penal Code and to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months u/s 279, Indian Penal Code.

I have heard Mr. Mahesh Grover, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent and have perused the record.

In order to prove the charge against the petitioner the prosecution examined Jagat Singh, father of the deceased and Kirpal Singh, PW 5. Since Kirpal Singh was not cited as a witness of the accident in the First Information Report so his testimony was discharged by the trial court. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the only evidence against the petitioner consisted of the statement of father of the deceased and that was not corroborated by any other witness or circumstance. The evidence on record rather proved it that the petitioner was not at fault and Gurmeet who was a child of the age of five years came running in front of the truck all of a sudden. A reference was made to the statement of the petitioner u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, where he had stated that Gurmeet was standing by the side of the road when all of a sudden he tried to cross the road and consequently he was run over by the truck. He was not in any manner rash and negligent and was not responsible for the accident. It was next urged that this version given in defence finds support from the statement of the complainant himself. The father of the deceased admitted in his cross-examination that his son, Gurmeet, was going a little ahead of him, i.e., at the time of accident he was at a distance of 10-20 kadam from him. He further admitted that the accident took place when his son tried to cross the road and the place of the accident was middle of the road. The truck had been noticed from a distance of 50-60 feet and his son started crossing the road when the truck was only at a distance of 6-7 feet from him. It was urged that the statement itself showed that the truck was not being driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner but it was the deceased himself who fully contributed to the cause of accident and came in front of the truck all of a sudden when it was only at a distance of 6-7 feet. This contention of the learned counsel is quite valid. Kirpal Singh, PW 5, was not cited as a witness in the First Information Report and he was examined subsequently. No reason was given for not examining Sohan Singh who was stated to be present at the time of accident. From the testimony of Jagat Singh as well as Kirpal Singh it was made out that the truck was noticed when it was quite at a distance. The boy who met with the accident was only aged five years. Although he was accompanied by his father, yet he was going ahead of him independently and when the truck came close he all of a sudden started crossing the road. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving and the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

For the reasons recorded above, I accept this petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. Fine, if deposited, be refunded.