Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner/accused, Satvinder Singh, was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by JMIC, vide his judgment dated 7.1.2005 and was sentenced as under:
(2.) AGAINST that conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment dated 13.3.2006. The present revision has been filed against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 3.5.1995 Suresh Kumar constable/complainant PW1, Bhupinder Singh deceased, who was also constable and Gian Chand Constable were posted in police post Khijra. They had gone on patrol duty on motor -cycle bearing No. PJK -4276 (hereinafter referred to as the 'motorcycle'), which was being driven by the deceased. When they were proceedings from Khijrabad towards Chuharpur at about 12.30 AM and were driving the motor -cycle on the left side of the road, the accused came driving truck bearing registration No. PIP -5637 (hereinafter referred to as the 'truck') from the opposite side at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently. He dashed the truck against the motorcycle as a result of which the same broke down. The complainant fell on one side of the road whereas Gian Chand fell on the other side. The legs of the deceased came under the motorcycle, which, as a result of the impact, caught fire. The deceased received burn and other injuries and died at the spot itself. The truck was stopped by the accused at some distance and he was duly identified by the complainant in the light of the truck, as he was known to him previously also. After leaving the truck, the accused escaped from that place. After leaving Gian Singh at spot, Suresh Kumar complainant came to the Police Post and made his statement Ex.PA before Om Parkash ASI PW7, who after recording the police proceedings PW7/A sent that statement to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex.PW7/B was recorded under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW7/C. He called Suresh Kumar photographer PW9 to the spot, who took the photographs Ex.PW9/1 to PW9/10. The truck was found lying at the spot with the front wheel punctured. The cows were loaded in the truck. The truck with the cows was taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB. The ASI prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to the hospital for post mortem examination. The complainant and Gian Chand were medically examined by Dr. Hari Om Gupta PW10, who found three and six injuries, respectively, on their person and the same were detailed in M.L reports. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. T.K. Gupta PW5, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries and burns, which were sufficient to cause the death in the natural course. The broken motorcycle and truck were mechanically tested by Dharam Pal Head Constable PW6, who gave his reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, respectively. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and the documents of the truck were taken into possession. After the completion thereof, the challan was put in before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and Section 4 -B/8 of the Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt prosecution examined Suresh Kumar Constable PW1, ASI Mohinder Singh PW2, Karnail Singh PW3, UGC Charan Singh PW4, Dr. T.K. Gupta PW5, HC Dharam Pal PW6, SI Om Parkash PW7, Tej Pal Singh PW8, Suresh Kumar, Photographer PW9 and Dr. Hari Om Gupta PW10. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 his innocence. 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.;