- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby, the appeal against judgment of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, was dismissed regarding offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Learned trial Court held revisionist Baljeet guilty for the offence under Section 337 IPC as well but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, acquitted the revisionist for the aforesaid offence for the reason that he was not chargesheeted for the same.
(2.) The learned trial Magistrate vide order of sentence dated 17.05.2002 sentenced the revisionist to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of 4 months and a fine of Rs. 300/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and a fine of Rs. 700/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 338 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of 3 months for the commission of aforesaid offence. Brief facts of the prosecution case are like this; that on 07.06.1995, complainant Mai Ram @ Baje Ram alongwith Manohar Lal son of Shankar Lal, left village Hamjapur for Delhi at about 4:00 P.M. by Tata- 407 bearing No. HR-39-7725. Buta Singh was the driver of that vehicle. Conductor whose name was not known to the complainant but was resident of village Kamana and was son of Bajigar, was also there in that truck. 8 buffaloes and 10 he-calves were also loaded in that vehicle. When they reached near Gaushala at Landhari canal bridge, it was about 8:30 P.M. As per complainant, he and conductor were sitting by the side of the driver whereas Manohar Lal was with the cattle. At Landhari Rajbaha (canal) while they were going by their side, bus bearing No. RJ-31P-0079, which was a private bus, came from Hisar side being driven rashly and negligently and struck against their Tata 407 vehicle by its left side. The name of the driver of the bus became known afterwards as Baljeet son of Chhaju Ram. As a result of this accident, engine of Tata 407 as well the left side window were badly damaged. Complainant as well conductor of Tata 407 vehicle received injuries on left eye, below the eye, on left foot and the teeth of the complainant were also broken. Manohar Lal also received injuries on his left side and on the right hand. As a result of this accident, as per complainant, the face of their Tata 407 vehicle was turned towards right side. They were taken out from the aforesaid vehicle by the people who were present at the spot. The bus driver took his bus backward and then passengers of the bus alighted from the bus. The driver of the Tata-407 vehicle had gone to his house for reporting about the accident, bus driver also left the spot. In this accident, as per complainant, 4 buffaloes and 2 hecalves had died. Conductor of Tata 407 vehicle had died, on reaching the hospital, on account of the injuries suffered by him. Complainant and Manohar Lal became unconscious on account of aforesaid injuries, on their way to hospital.
(3.) The aforesaid statement of complainant is Ex. PZ which was recorded by the police on 08.06.1995. ASI Jagdish Singh made his endorsement on this statement and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case, whereupon formal FIR Ex. PW11/A was recorded. In fact, on receipt of information regarding this accident, police had reached the spot and after taking out the injured from Tata 407 vehicle, they were sent to hospital. On 07.06.1995, application was moved before the doctor for seeking opinion as to if injured Manohar Lal and Mai Ram were fit to give statement, whereupon, doctor opined vide Ex. PW11/B that they were not fit to give statement. Again on 08.06.1995, opinion of doctor was sought in this regard, whereupon, doctor opined that they were fit to give statements. Inquest report was completed. Dead body of Gurudev Singh (conductor) was got post-mortemed. Site plan of the spot Ex. PW11/C was prepared. Tata 407 vehicle bearing No. HR-39-7725 and bus bearing No. RJ-31P-0079 were taken into police possession vide memos Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B respectively. Photographs of the spot were also obtained. That very day, registration certificate (RC) of Tata 407 vehicle and driving license (D.L) of Buta Singh and copy of insurance were taken into police possession. That very day both the aforesaid vehicles were got mechanically tested. On 09.06.1995 accused was arrested. At that time, photostat RC of bus No. RJ-31P-0079 and photocopy of D.L of Baljit Singh were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW3/B. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of necessary investigations, the challan was put in the Court against the accused. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused for committing offence punishable under Sections 279 IPC, 338 IPC and 304-A IPC, revisionist-accused was charge sheeted. To the charge, accused did not plead guilty but claimed trial. After taking entire prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein each prosecution allegation appearing against the accused was denied and accused pleaded his innocence and false implication. After hearing both the counsel for the parties and appraising the entire evidence and material coming on record, the learned trial Court held revisionist-accused guilty for committing offence punishable under Sections 279,337,338 and 304-A IPC. Vide order of sentence dated 17.05.2002, they were sentenced, as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Revisionist had gone in appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. After recording the judgment dated 03.10.2006, confirmed the judgment of conviction of revisionist-accused so far as offence under Sections 279,338 and 304-A IPC are concerned, whereas he was acquitted for the offence under Section 337 IPC. Thus, the appeal filed by the revisionist-accused was dismissed accordingly. Aggrieved by the aforementioned two judgments passed by the Courts below, the revisionist-accused has come up in this Court by way of revision petition with the grouse that he was not driving the bus in question at the relevant time nor was identified by any of the prosecution witnesses and also there is no evidence regarding his rash or negligent driving of vehicle in question. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel besides going through the record of this case.;