LAWS(P&H)-2008-3-195

NIRMAL SINGH ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 04, 2008
Nirmal Singh Alias Pappu Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Nirmal Singh alias Pappu son of Sohan Singh was tried in case FIR No. 413 dated 12.09.1988 registered at Police Station, Fatehabad under Section 279/304 -A IPC. He was convicted by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad under Section 279/304 -A IPC to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. In default of payment, it was ordered that he shall undergo RI for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

(2.) THE case of prosecution is that on 11th September, 1988 petitioner, due to rash and negligent driving of a tractor bearing No. HRB - 7387, caused the death of Gurmej Singh in village Ahli Sadar. FIR was lodged at the instance of Joginder Singh (complainant) PW -4, who had Criminal Revision No. 843 of 1995 2 stated that on 11th September, 1988, at about 7 -7.30 p.m he along with Gurmej Singh son of Surta Singh was coming to Fatehabad from village Ahli Sadar on a motorcycle bearing No. PNC -8264. It is stated that when they reached near the tubewell of one Sh.Dev Raj, then petitioner, who was driving a Ford tractor, due to his rash and negligent driving struck against the motorcycle, due to which complainant and Gurmej Singh fell from the motorcycle and Gurmej Singh, the pillion rider received injuries at his neck. It is further stated that due to injuries, Gurmej Singh died. It is further stated that the accident was witnesses by Jagir Singh son of Maghar Singh, who has appeared as PW -3.

(3.) IN both the courts below, testimony of Joginder Singh PW -4, complainant, has been assailed that he being a solitary witness cannot be relied. It has been further urged before the courts below that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the petitioner. It is further stated that in the present case, investigating officer was not examined. There was nothing on the record, from which visual observations of the site could have been brought to the notice of the courts.