LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-135

RAM PHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 18, 2009
RAM PHAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2002, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2000 and the order of sentence dated 26.09.2000, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, convicting the accused, for the offence, punishable under Sections 279, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and awarding sentence to him, for various terms of imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 12.02.1993,at about 6.30 am, Prem Singh, complainant, Chander Bhan and Anil Kumar were going to Panipat from Sunam, in Maruti Van, bearing registration No. DNH-8951, which was being driven by him ( Prem Singh ). Chander Bhan was sitting by his side, Anil Kumar was sitting at the back side. When they reached near village Saffa Kheri, from the side of Uchana, one truck bearing registration No. HRV-2612, being driven by Ram Phal, at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, came and struck against maruti van, towards conductor's side. Ultimately, with the impact of the accident, the front portion of the van turned towards Narwana side. As a result of the accident, Chander Bhan, proprietor of the maruti van, sustained multiple injuries, on his head and chest. He was removed to Civil Hospital Narwana by Anil Kumar. He, however, ultimately succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the statement, made by Prem Singh, the FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challenged.

(3.) THE prosecution, in support of its case, examined Prem Singh,(PW- 1),Anil Kumar,(PW-2), Ashok Kumar,(PW-3),Virender Singh,(PW-4), Suresh Kumar, Photographer,(PW-5), and Dr. R.K. Singla, (PW-6). The prosecution, however, failed to examine the remaining witnesses. Ultimately, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence.