- (1.) The Petitioner/accused, Niranjan Dass @ Niranjan Singh, has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence recorded by the CJM, Kaithal, for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, vide judgment dated 6.2.2003, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment dated 15.2.2006.
(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is, that on 5.4.1994, Puran Kaur, complainant (PW-5) had hired one four wheeler, bearing registration No. HR-08-1024, on which the accused was the driver, for going to Haripura village to have a look of Balwinder Kaur, as a prospective match for her son. She went to that village, alongwith Gian Kaur and others. At about 5.30 p.m., they started back on that four wheeler. When they had covered a distance of about 1-1/2-2 kms from Baba Lahana, the four wheeler was being driven by the accused at a very fast speed, inspite of the fact that he had already been checked from doing so repeatedly by Sardul Singh. As a result of the fast speed, the vehicle went out of the control of the accused and when he tried to apply the break, the same turned turtle on account of that fast speed. All the occupants thereof received injuries and they were removed to the hospital at Kaithal. Sardul Singh, who had received injuries on his head also, succumbed to his injuries. The other occupants; namely, Jeet Singh, Bhajan Kaur, Gian Kaur and Darshan Singh were medically examined by Dr. Nitin Mehta (PW-3), who found injuries on the person of all those persons. On receipt of written message Ex. PW3/G about this accident, Attar Singh, SI went to the hospital and obtained the opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the injured to make their statements. After Puran Kaur was declared fit, he recorded her statement Ex. PA, in which she deposed about the above said facts. After making his endorsement upon the same, the ASI sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof, the FIR Ex. PA/1 was registered against the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. The SI went to the place of accident and called Ashok Kumar, Photographer (PW-8), who took photographs Exs. P1 to P5. The four wheeler was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PC. The SI prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of Sardul Singh and sent the same for post-mortem examination. On 6.4.1994. Dayal Singh, ASI, (PW14) went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PB. The injuries on the person of the above persons were radiologically examined by Dr. S.K. Singla (PW-2), who found fractures of different bones of Bakshish Singh, Bhajan Kaur, Darshan Singh and Puran Kaur. The autopsy on the dead body of Sardul Singh was performed by Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-9), who found ante-mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by those injuries. On 6.4.1994, the four wheeler was mechanically tested by Jai Kishan (PW-10), who found the same to be in mechanical order and gave his report Ex. PW/1. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and his driving licence and registration certificate of the four wheeler was taken into possession. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the CJM, Kaithal, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Attar Singh (PW-1), Dr. S.K. Singla (PW-2), Dr. Nitin Mehta (PW-3), Sube Singh, Inspector (PW-4), Puran Kaur, complainant (PW-5), Gian Kaur (PW-6), Bachan Kaur (PW-7), Ashok Kumar, Photographer (PW-8), Dr. Jasmer Singh (PW-9), Jai Kishan, HC (PW-10), Darshan Singh (PW-11), Bakshish Singh (PW-12), Jeet Singh (PW-13), Dayal Singh (PW-14), Dharam Singh, SI (PW-15), Sube Singh (PW-16), Mahender Singh (PW-17) and Tarsem Singh (PW-18). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded that he was driving the four wheeler carefully and the same turned turtle due to sudden application of the break. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.;