MANN PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Ballu Ram, brother of Mahabir, was residing near National Service Station, Meham Gate, Bhiwani. Along with his brother they used to work as contractors in the M.I.T.C. Department. On 25.2.1989 at about 8.00 p.m. they were sitting in National Service Station. Later Ballu Ram and Umed, nephew of Ballu Ram, were strolling on the footpath on the right side. Truck No. HRY-3488 came from the Bus stand side, Bhiwani, with rash and negligent speed. That truck climbed on the footpath and caused the accident hitting Ballu Ram from behind. Umed Singh also sustained some injuries. The said truck was being driven by Mann Parkash son of Daya Nand, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-accused. The said driver left the truck and fled away. The petitioner-accused was identified by Umed Singh, who lodged the complaint on the spot itself. Injured Ballu Ram was hospitalised in General Hospital, Bhiwani by Devi Chand Ex. Subedar, where Ballu Ram breathed his last. Case under FIR No. 20 dated 25.2.1989, under Sections 279/337/304A, IPC was consequently registered against the petitioner. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.

(2.) PETITIONER was charge-sheeted on 7.6.1989 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution is stated to have examined seven witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded, on 4.6.1993. As per his statement, the accused was falsely implicated. However, upon completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani, vide his judgment and order dated 15.9.1993 convicted the petition and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 279, IPC and 337, IPC and for a period of two years under Section 304A, IPC.

(3.) HAVING heard the Counsel for the parties at some length I am of the considered view that this contention of the learned Counsel is not sustainable. The prosecution, as noted above, examined seven witnesses, out of which PW2 was an eye-witness and other two were the witnesses who came to the spot immediately after the occurrence. PW2 has categorically stated that the truck was driven by petitioner Mann. He has also stated that the driver ran away and that witnesses Mahavir Singh and Devi Chand had come to the spot immediately and they took Ballu Ram to the hospital. The police had also reached the spot and had taken the vehicle in custody as well as the blood-stains from the place of occurrence. Nothing material could be noticed in the cross-examination of this witness. This witness categorically stated that he can identify the accused and so identified him even in Court. He had denied a categorical suggestion that the accused was not driving the truck. The death of Ballu Ram has been duly proved and also the injuries suffered by PW2. The doctor was examined and the prosecution version has also been duly supported by the two other material witnesses i.e. Mahavir Singh and Devi Chand.