SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that on 28.2.2003, the petitioner-convict was driving the offending Tempo in question at a high speed, rashly and negligently despite repeated requests by the passengers to the contrary. As soon as, it reached the bridge of minor canal near village Ghikara (place of occurrence), the petitionerconvict could not control and the Tempo turned turtle. As a result thereof, one Joginder Singh had fallen outside the Tempo and sustained injuries. Subsequently, he succumbed to his injuries.

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner-convict while driving the offending Tempo, in which, Joginder Singh had died. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Rajpal (PW2), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-convict, by means of FIR No.556 dated 28.2.2003 (Ex.PA), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani in the manner depicted here-in-above.

(3.) After the completion of investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) and consequently, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner-convict to face the trial of indicated offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.