MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stands convicted for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years, coupled with fine of '1,500/-, i.e., '1,000/- for his conviction for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, Rs.300/- and Rs.200/- respectively for offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC. The prosecution version has been mainly given by persons driving and travelling in a Bolero Jeep. While this Jeep was en route from Karnal to Kurukshetra, a Maruti Car bearing registration No.HR02D-1373 was going a little ahead of Bolero Jeep. There was another Car also proceeding towards Pipli. The driver of the Bolero Jeep soon found a TATA 407 four wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.HR45-2983 approaching from the opposite direction. Vehicle crossed the divider and hit Maruti Car bearing No.HR02D-1373. Maruti Car fell into a ditch on the left side. TATA 407 four wheeler vehicle then struck against another Car and finally turned turtle. After some time, driver of TATA 407 four wheeler vehicle escaped from the place. The persons travelling in the Maruti Car as well as in other cars were taken out of the respective cars with great difficulties. In this incident, four persons died, one at the spot and three in the hospital, besides, various injuries to other persons travelling in these two cars.

(2.) The trial Court, on the basis of evidence, convicted the petitioner, against which he had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court has considered the submissions made on merits and has dismissed the appeal. However, the Court has altered the conviction of the petitioner from offence under Section 338 to Section 337 IPC in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the passengers.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was serious doubt about the identity of the driver. The driver of the Bolero Jeep, which had seen the occurrence, has identified the driver as the driver had remained present at the scene of accident for some time before escaping therefrom. The evidence would also show that the defence taken by the petitioner was that the accident took place due to failure of steering of TATA 407 four wheeler vehicle. The vehicle had been mechanically examined, but in the report this defect was not noticed or pointed out. The petitioner made no efforts to lead this evidence in defence. The manner of accident would leave no manner of doubt that this was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. Once the petitioner has admitted the accident on account of defect in the steering wheel, he cannot take the defence of his identity having not been established. Even otherwise, the petitioner had remained present at scene for some duration before escaping. He could have, thus, been identified by the occupant of the Bolero Jeep. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out as there is a rather limited scope of interference on the basis of appreciation of evidence. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed.