KULWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -accused, Kulwinder Singh, was convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, vide judgment dated 3.2.2004 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A IPC and was sentenced as under:

(2.) IT was on 9.7.1996 that Sumer Singh, complainant, PW -1, had come to village Badhwana for depositing the electricity charges. His brother Partap Singh -deceased, was already present in the bus stand of that village. At about 9.00 a.m., Siri Chand, PW -2, met the complainant by chance and he was talking to him. In the meanwhile, the accused came driving truck bearing Registration No. PB -11D 6249 rashly and negligently and struck the same in the deceased while he was standing on the kacha portion of the road. The rear wheels of the truck passed over his legs and he became injured seriously. The accused stopped the truck at some distance and alighted from the same. He disclosed his name and other particulars. When the complainant was taking care of the injured/deceased, the accused managed to escape. The injured/deceased was removed to Government Hospital, Charkhi Dadri, from where he was referred to PGI, Rohtak. About this accident, the complainant made his statement, Ex. PA. before Ram Avtar HC, PW -5, who after recording his police proceedings, Ex. PW -5/A, sent that to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW5/B, was recorded against the accused under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The injured/deceased died in PGI, Rohtak on the same day and an intimation to that effect was sent to the police Station. On the receipt of that information, HC went to that hospital and prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. S.S. Dahiya, PW -6, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to those injuries, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested. The truck involved in the accident, which was impounded subsequently, was mechanically tested by Rishal Singh, PW -4, who found the same to be in mechanical order, about which he gave his report, Ex. PW4/A. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the SDJM, Charkhi Dadri, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 -A IPC. The accused was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Sumer Singh, PW -1, Siri Chand, PW -2, Atma Ram, PW -3, Risal Singh, PW -4, Ram Avtar, PW -5 and Dr. S.S. Dahiya, PW -6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Code of 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 and innocence. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

(3.) COUNSEL for the accused did not assail the conviction so recorded by the trial and upheld by the appellate court. He has submitted that the accused has been standing his trial from the last 14 years and has the responsibility of looking after his family members. He also submitted that the accused has already undergone the imprisonment for a period of six months and prayed that the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him under Section 304 -A IPC be reduced to the sentence already undergone. However, that prayer of the counsel for the accused has been opposed by the State counsel. According to him, the accused has undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of only 11 days and has placed on record the custody certificate of the accused to that effect.