SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment, dated 25.8.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction, dated 21.4.2011, and the order of sentence, dated 23.4.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, was dismissed.

(2.) In a nut-shell the case of the prosecution is that Anil Kumar Sahni, Vidhya Parkash Sahni, Kashmiri Lal, Chandbir and Maan Singh had sustained injuries in an accident. In his statement to the police, Anil Kumar Sahni, Advocate, stated that on 5.11.2005, he along with his father, Vidhya Parkash Sahni, and Kashmiri Lal, Chandbir and Maan Singh (all Advocates), was going towards the Court in his car bearing Registration No. HR-05P-0969. At about 10.30 a.m., when he reached near the Mini Secretariat and took turn on the left side towards the Courts, then a car bearing Registration No. HR-09F-0071, driven in a rash or negligent manner by Santosh (petitioner), came from Model Town side and while coming on the wrong side, hit the car driven by the complainant on the left side, as a result of which the car of the complainant turned turtle and all the five occupants of the car received serious injuries. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 337, IPC, but after receipt of the reports of X-ray examination and death report of Vidhya Parkash Sahni from PGIMER, Chandigarh, the offences punishable under Section 338 and 304-A, IPC, were added. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for prosecution of the petitioner and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC, were framed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined injured persons, namely, Maan Singh, Kashmiri Lal and Anil Kumar as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively; HC Sanjay Kumar, Photographer, as PW-4; Vidhya Sagar, Advocate, as PW-5, who identified the dead body of the deceased; Dr. H.S. Sehgal as PW-6, who proved the MLRs Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C, ruqa Ex. PW6/D sent by him and endorsement Ex. PW6/E made by him; SI Dilbag Singh, Investigating Officer, as PW-7; Dr. Iqbal Singh as PW-8, who proved X-ray report Ex. PW8/A and X-ray films Ex. PW8/G of Chandbir, X-ray report Ex. PW8/H of Maan Singh, X-ray report Ex. PW8/I and X-ray films Ex. PW8/J to Ex. PW8/O of Kashmiri Lal injured; EHC Ved Pal, Motor Mechanic as PW-9, who proved his reports Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B; Dr. Piyush Sharma as PW-10, who proved the PMR, Ex. PW10/A. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by Court order, dated 28.3.2011, as the prosecution had failed to examine the remaining witnesses despite last opportunity.