SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused, Sukhwinder Singh, was convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 14.7.2005 and was sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_405_LAWS(P&H)4_2011_1.html</FRM> He preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide judgment dated 25.3.2006. Now, he has preferred the present revision against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that on 12.1.1999, at about 9 p.m., Balwinder Singh was going on a bicycle on his left hand side on the road dividing Sectors 17-18, Panchkula. The accused came driving motor vehicle make Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. HR 02-E-5296 rashly and negligently from the back side and struck the same in his bicycle, as a result of which he was thrown on the ground and received the injuries. Thereafter, the vehicle struck in the electric pole as a result of which the mercury light installed thereon fell down. After leaving the vehicle at the spot, the accused escaped. This accident was witnessed by Gian Chand, PW-3 and Rajbir Singh, PW-1, Constables of Police Post, Sector-7, Panchkula, who were on patrol duty near the site of accident. Gian Chand, Constable, made his statement, Ex. PC, before Hardeep Singh, SI, PW-6, who after recording the police proceedings, Ex. PF/1, sent that statement to the Police Station and on the basis thereof FIR, Ex. PF/1, was recorded. Balwinder Singh was removed to the hospital for his treatment. The ASI accompanied by the complainant came to the place of accident and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PF/2. He called Dev Singh, Photographer, to the spot, who took the photographs. Ex. P.1 to P.3. The vehicle, the bicycle and the mercury light, found lying at the spot were taken into possession, vide Memo Ex. PA. On account of the serious condition of the injured, he was sent to PGI, Chandigarh, where he died on 14.1.1994 and written information, Ex. PF/4, was sent to the police. On the receipt of that information, the SI came to PGI, Chandigarh, and prepared the inquest report, Ex. PF/4, in respect of the dead body. He sent the same for post mortem examination, along with his application, Ex. PF/5. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted on 15.1.1999 by Dr. Surinder Singh, who found five ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was dedema of the brain due to subarachnoid hemorrhage and contusion, as a result of the head injury. The accused was arrested on 16.1.1999 and he produced his own Driving Licence and the Insurance Cover of the vehicle before the SI, who took those into possession, vide Memo Ex. PC/1. On the same date, the vehicle was mechanically tested by Nafe Singh, Mechanic, PW-2, who found the same to be in mechanical order and gave his report, Ex. PB. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections and 304-A Indian Penal Code. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Rajbir Singh, PW-1, Nafe Singh, PW-2, Gian Chand, PW-3,Dev Singh, PW-4, Rohtash Kumar, PW-5 and Hardeep Singh, PW-6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded by the trial court 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 false implication. 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.