JABAR SINGH SAROBA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -revisionist Jabar Singh Saroba was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 -A of IPC and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default of payment of which, he was directed to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, vide judgment and order dated 30.03.2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Accused -revisionist was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal appeal was preferred by the accused, which was dismissed, vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2005. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred. According to the complainant, her son worked in a dhaba (hotel) of Meharpal Singh. On 24.07.2003, Meharpal Singh got a petromax gas cylinder of the capacity of four kg. filled up from the shop of accused -revisionist Jabar Singh Saroba, who, filled up gas of six kg and 200 gms, instead of four kg, in the petromax. Meharpal Singh's son Sompal brought the same in the dhaba (hotel). When the petromax was ignited, the same burst, as a consequence of which, Sompal Singh, son of Meharpal Singh and two others sustained injuries. Complainant's son was admitted in Government Hospital, Haridwar, whereupon the injured was taken to Dehradun, and on being referred to higher centre, he was taken to Delhi. The injured breathed his last on 04.08.2003, at 10:00 a.m., at Safdarjang Hospital. The complainant went to the police station to lodge the first information report, but her report was not registered. She had, therefore, no option but to file the criminal complaint case on 29.01.2004.

(2.) ACCUSED -revisionist was summoned to face the trial. He was, thereafter, charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304 -A, 504 and 506 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. P.W. 1 Smt. Premwati, P.W. 2 Rampal Singh, P.W. 3 Dharmendra, P.W. 4 Karan Singh, P.W. 5 Ghaseeta and P.W. 6 Rampal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. D.W. 1 Kheempal Singh, D.W. 2 Devendra Singh, D.W. 3 Kirti Singh, D.W. 4 Rangat Singh, D.W. 5 Jabar Singh and D.W. 6 Mehar Singh were examined on behalf of the defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court convicted the accused -revisionist (Jabar Singh Saroba) under Section 304 -A of IPC. He was sentenced accordingly. As stated above, a criminal appeal was preferred by him, which criminal appeal was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court, and aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Revision was preferred.

(3.) IN her cross -examination, she stated that Jabar Singh's shop was situated at a distance of 2 -2 1/2 kilometers away from her house. Although, she did not see the incident, but she went to the place of occurrence, when the alarm was raised by the wife of the deceased. In her cross -examination under Section 246 Cr.P.C., P.W. 1 stated that her son was taken to Haridwar in an ambulance. He remained admitted at Haridwar also, but finally, was referred to Delhi, where he remained admitted for two days and nights and ultimately died on the 3rd day.