JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING been convicted under Sections 279 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karnal, (for short 'trial Court') vide judgment dated 24.1.2006 and sentenced vide order dated 25.1.2006 to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment for 2 months under Section 304 -A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment of two months under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner -Joginder Singh filed Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2006, which after contest has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, (for short 'appellate Court') vide judgment dated 28.2.2007. Compelled by the situation arising out of dismissal of his appeal maintaining the conviction and sentence, convict Joginder Singh has invoked the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) by way of the instant revision petition, which the State is contesting.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent -State.

(3.) IT is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on guess -work and are not backed by the evidence available on record. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence, whatsoever, available on record to connect the petitioner with the unfortunate occurrence and the learned Courts below have made out a case against him out of nothing. It has also been pointed out that in the evidence available on record, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offending vehicle stated to be involved in the occurrence.