JOGINDER SINGH @ KALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 IPC imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 13/14.3.1996 and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 6.3.1998.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 5.12.1991 on receipt of ruqa, HC Balbir Singh reached the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of Mahender Singh injured to make statement had recorded the statement of Mahender Singh injured. In the said statement, it was alleged by Mahender Singh injured that he was having a tube puncture shop and his cousin Gurjant Singh had come to meet him. It was alleged that he along with Gurjant Singh was going on scooter number HYF 6564 being driven by him while Gurjant Singh was the pillion rider. It was alleged that at 2.30 p.m. when they were returning to Ratia from Dhani Bilaspur and reached near Dhani of Mithu Singh, truck No. HRH 9321 came from behind driven at a high speed and struck against the scooter as a result of which both of them fell down and Gurjant Singh was run over by the truck and died at the pot on account of the injuries while the complainant received multiple injuries. Mithu Singh and Partap Singh removed them to the hospital and that the truck driver absconded after leaving the truck at the spot. During investigation, the accused was arrested. The scooter and the truck were got mechanically examined. The inquest report was prepared and postmortem examination was also conducted on the dead body of the deceased while Mahender Singh complainant was got medico legally examined. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. The prosecution produced its evidence.The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he was not driving the truck and no such accident had taken place. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted accused appellant Joginder Singh under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, vide judgment and order dated 13/14.3.1996. The appeal filed by Joginder Singh appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved against the same, the accused filed the present Revision Petition in this Court.

(3.) No-one has come present on behalf of the accused-petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing no-one had come present and while adjourning the case for today, it was made clear that no further date shall be given.