HANUMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Hanuman and Sandeep has approached this Court assailing order dated 20/8/2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide which the trial Court has declined an application moved by the petitioners for examining Shri Bhagwan, Anil Kumar Chauhan, MHC/concerned officer of CPS Rajor Garden West District Delhi, Yogender Singh and Sunil Kumar in defence evidence in trial arising out of FIR No. 180 dtd. 5/6/2018 under Ss. 279/337/304/420/212/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh. .

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Dharambir wherein it has been stated that on 4/6/2018 his nephew Rinku alongwith Pankaj was going on a motorcycle which was being driven by Rinku. The complainant and I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Kumar were also on a motorcycle, a little behind them. It is alleged that a pick-up van came from opposite side which was being driven at a high speed and in a negligent and rash manner and hit against the motorcycle driven by complainant's nephew, as a result of which complainant's nephew Rinku and Pankaj sustained injuries. While Pankaj died at the spot, Rinku breathed his last in the hospital. It is alleged that the pick-up van, which was without number plate sped away from the spot. Although, initially the FIR was registered for offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC but later offence under Sec. 304 IPC was added in place of offence under Sec. 304-A IPC on the basis of an application dtd. 29/6/2018 moved by Dharambir/complainant to the Investigating Officer stating therein that the offending vehicle was bearing registration No. HR-61-9200 and that infact the driver after causing the accident had reversed his vehicle and had run his vehicle over the injured to ensure that they are killed.

(3.) The name of owner of the offending vehicle was found to be Hanuman. The offending vehicle i.e. HR-61-9200 was found to be driven by Sandeep son of Hanuman at the time of accident. It is the case of prosecution that the driver Sandeep is brother-in-law of one Sunil and the petitioner, who is an Advocate, is elder brother of Sunil. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner, who is an Advocate, had conspired with the main accused and in order to help him had planned to destroy the vehicle in question and in execution of the plan, the vehicle in question is stated to have been sold to Sunil by way of an affidavit dtd. 8/3/2018 and said Sunil vide agreement dtd. 20/5/2018, had given the vehicle to one Shri Bhagwan who is a client of Satyavir, Advocate on monthly rent of Rs.10,000.00 and later Shri Bhagwan got a false FIR lodged i.e. FIR No.042164 dtd. 27/11/2018 at Police I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Station, Rajori Garden, West Delhi to the effect that his vehicle had been stolen though the same had never been stolen. Later, Shri Bhagwan sold the pick-up van as scrap to a scrap-vendor to save Sandeep from legal consequences and the vehicle had, thus, been destroyed.