RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by Ranbir Singh petitioner directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 7-5-1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak. The petitioner was held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. He was further sentenced to, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for, the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that on 19-7-1983 at about 7.30 p.m. Hawa Singh complainant along with Salig Ram and one Chhabila was going towards Meham from village Kharkara. When these persons crossed Meham minor, they saw a motorcycle bearing No. DEX - 5246 driven by Nihal Singh. One Med Singh was on the pillion. Truck No. HRH - 3087 was also coming from the same direction. The motor - cycle was being driven on the left side but the truck driver was driving the same rashly and negligently. As a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck, it struck in the hind portion of the motor - cycle. As a result of this, both the riders alongwith the motor - cycle were dragged to some distance. Nihal Singh died at the spot while Med Singh received injuries on the head. Chander Singh. Sarpanch of the village, also reached there. All the persons present raised an alarm. The truck was stopped. The driver disclosed his name as Ranbir Singh. When Hawa Singh and others were busy in taking care of the injured, petitioner fled from the spot. The injured was removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Hawa Singh complainant made a statement as a result of which formal First Information Report was drawn. The police visited the place of accident, prepared the site plan and took into possession the vehicles. They were mechanically examined. The site was photographed. Post mortem was conducted on the persons of the deceased. It was thereafter that when the investigation was completed that report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.

(3.) The learned trial Court held that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently as a result of which two human lives were lost and accordingly passed the abovesaid judgment and order of sentence. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner and that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The same was dismissed.