MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the judgement dated 25.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgement of conviction dated 09.02.2010 and the order of sentence dated 11.02.2010 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali.

(2.) Facts first. Briefly stated, the case set up by the prosecution was that the complainant Dana Ram son of Devi Lal, resident of Shiv Nagar, Dabwali, got his statement recorded Ex.PC to the police. It was stated that he was a labourer and his father Devi Lal son of Ganga Ram was working in a shop. On 28.10.2004, at around 03.15 p.m., he along with Manohar Lal son of Matu Ram and Chiranji Lal son of Rura Ram were present near Sales Tax Check Post Dabwali. They were talking with each other. At that point of time, his father Devi Lal came there for his personal work on his bicycle. He started crossing road after giving a signal and looking both sides of the road. When he was crossing the road, a truck bearing registration No.RJ-130F-2574 came from the side of Mandi Dabwali at a fast speed. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The offending truck hit the bicycle of his father. His father received injuries. The driver stopped the truck and tried to run away but he was overpowered by the complainant with the help of Manohar Lal and Chiranji Lal. On asking the driver told his name as Mangal Singh son of Jaswant Singh, resident of Abohar. Thereafter, his father was brought to the civil hospital for treatment by Chiranji Lal and Manohar Lal by arranging a jeep but on reaching the hospital, his father died due to injuries suffered by him. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. On the statement of the complainant Dana Ram, a formal FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation was carried out. The accused was arrested and subsequently released on bail. On completion of the investigation, report under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. was presented to the learned Court of competent jurisdiction.

(3.) Having found a prima facie case, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A Penal Code. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, besides, tendering the relevant documents in evidence. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. wherein the accused pleaded complete innocence alleging false implication. He also opted to lead defence evidence but, as a matter of fact, did not lead any defence evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, recorded the conviction of the accused vide judgement of conviction dated 09.02.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A Penal Code. Consequently, vide its order of sentence dated 11.02.2010, the learned trial Court awarded the sentence to the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.span 200.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week. The convict was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.span 800.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.