JAGDISH @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused, Jagdish @ Pappu son of Sh. Hari Chand was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 5.1.2001 and vide order dated 6.1.2001, he was sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_400_LAWS(P&H)4_2011_1.html</FRM> Against that conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 20.2.2006. Now, he has preferred the present revision against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.3.1993, at about 10. P.M., Shamsher Singh, complainant, PW-1, along with Chanderphool and Prem Singh, deceased, left the factory, Aravely Pipe Limited, Hansi, for going to their houses on their respective bicycles. When at about 10.30 p.m., they had reached near the Grid Station, Hansi, in the limits of village Dhedhari, one truck was lying parked on the left side of the road. In the meanwhile, one car make Maruti, bearing Registration No. DL 1C/B 8075, came from their back side, which was first struck in the bicycles of the deceased and then on the back side of the said truck, which had Registration No. HYF 8511. Both the deceased were thrown away and died at the spot itself. Even the driver of the car received the injuries, who was taken out and was sent to the hospital at Hisar for his treatment. After giving information about this accident in his village, the complainant, after leaving Fateh Singh at the spot, was proceeding to the police station for lodging a report, when Ram Rattan, SI, SHO, along with other police officials, met him on the Hansi-Hisar Road. At that place, he made his statement, Ex. PA, about this accident before the SI, who after recording his police proceedings sent the same to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR was recorded under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. The SI went to the place of accident and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. Sanjay Kumar, Photographer, PW- 3, was called to the spot, who took the photographs, Ex. P.10 to P.18. The truck and the car were taken into possession, vide Memo Ex. PB. The SI prepared the inquest reports in respect of the dead bodies of both the deceased and sent the same to Civil Hospital, Hisar, for post mortem examination. Sanjay and one Satish Kumar were also admitted in that hospital for the injuries suffered by them in this accident. They were medically examined and injuries were found on their person. The SI made applications to the doctor for enquiring about the fitness of those injured to make their statements, but they were declared unfit to make their statements. Satish Kumar succumbed to his injuries and his dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Prem Singh was conducted by Dr. S.S.Malik, PW-4, who found eight ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the death was the result of hemorrhage and shock due to injury No. 8, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The autopsy on the dead body of Chanderphool, deceased, was performed by Dr.Surender Singh, PW-5, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was the result of hemorrhage due to those multiple injuries and the same were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After Sanjay was declared fit to make his statement, his statement was recorded by the SI, wherein he stated that he and Satish Kumar were travelling in the said car which was being driven by the present accused and that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by the accused. The car was mechanically tested by Amar Singh, Mechanic, PW-2, and about that test he gave his report, Ex. P.2. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested. The documents of the car and his driving licence were taken into possession. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the JMIC, Hansi, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Shamsher Singh, complainant, PW-1, Amar Singh, Mechanic, PW-2, Sanjay Kumar, PW-3, Dr. S.S.Malik, PW-4 and Dr. Surender Singh, PW-5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Sec. 313 Code Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those ? circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He was called upon to enter on his defence, but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.