BIJENDER @ BINDRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 7/11/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which judgment of conviction dtd. 2/9/2011 and order on quantum of sentence dtd. 3/9/2011 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, in FIR No.93 dtd. 5/8/2005 registered under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Baroda, Gohana, have been upheld.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ajmer Singh has made a statement before the police on 5/8/2005 that he is resident of village Butana Kundu and he is an agriculturist. On 5/8/2005 at about 02:30 pm, he alongwith his father Ramphal and his younger brother Vikas were going to their fields. When they reached near road and Vikas was crossing the road, then a Cruiser Jeep of golden colour came from Jind side in a rash and negligent manner and directly hit his brother Vikas due to which, Vikas fell down on the middle of road. The driver of the Jeep stopped his Jeep bearing registration No.MKE-FF-7492, but after some time, the driver of the Jeep ran away from the spot alongwith his Jeep. Rajinder son of Bani Singh, resident of village Butana Kundu chased the Jeep on his motorcycle. Vikas succumbed to the injuries on the spot. On the basis of the said statement, MLR etc., the FIR (supra) under Ss. 279, 304-A IPC was registered.

(3.) Learned amicus curiae, inter alia, contends that PW-9, who is the eye-witness of the alleged incident and real brother of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has refused to identify the petitioner in the Court and further deposed that the accident had taken place with some unknown vehicle. Further the complainant Ajmer Singh did not disclose the name of the driver before the police when his statement was recorded on 5/8/2005. As such, both the learned Courts below have not appreciated the said facts and fell into grave error by convicting the petitioner. Even the Investigating Officer was not examined in this case and without examining the Investigating Officer, the investigation carried out by him is not proved at all. Further, the learned Courts below have convicted the petitioner only on the basis of the statements of PW-1, PW-7 and PW-10. Moreover, the prosecution has not conducted the test identification parade to establish the identity of the petitioner being the person responsible for the alleged offence. She further contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has family responsibilities. Furthermore, the petitioner has been facing trial for more than 19 years, and as such, the learned Courts below should have considered releasing him on probation under Sec. 361 Cr.P.C. read with Ss. 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Lastly, she submits that the petitioner be released on probation in view of his good conduct.