KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the two counts under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, whereas for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution, on 23.9.1995 at 6.00 P.M., complainant Parkash, accompanied by his son Komal, aged 11 years, his neighbour Banarsi and Banarsi's son Anil, aged 10 years, was going to Babra Chowk, Rohtak to fetch milk. When they were crossing the roundabout near Mata Darwaja, a bus belonging to Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HR-12-9619 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Jind road. The driver did not blow the horn but turned the bus towards right side, where the complainant and others were walking. On noticing the bus coming towards them, the complainant and Banarsi jumped on the roundabout and saved themselves, whereas the two children were trapped between the bus and the grill of the roundabout and received injuries. It was the petitioner who was driving the bus at the time of the accident. He tried to flee from the spot by driving the bus away but had to abandon it at a distance of 50 steps. He came out of the bus and fled away. Out of the two children, Komal, son of the complainant, succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution had examined Parkash PW2, Banarsi PW3 and Ramphal PW10, in support of the ocular account. All of them stood the test of cross-examination. The petitioner was not able to bring any material on record so as to convince the Court that he had been falsely implicated. Under these circumstances, there is no scope for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accident in question had taken place in September 1995 and ever since then the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. He has a large family of three children and his wife to look after as he is the sole bread winner. The petitioner is not a previous convict. Moreover, the injured and the heirs of the deceased have already been awarded compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and they have already been paid the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner be granted relief of probation instead of being sent behind the bars, once again, for serving the remaining sentence.