Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been preferred by Satish Kumar son of Raghuraj Singh. He was prosecuted in case FIR No. 37 dated 21.2.1992 registered at Police Station Naraingarh under Sections 279, 336 & 304 -A IPC. After conducting the investigation, challan was submitted.
(2.) CHARAGE was framed against the petitioner on 30.4.1992 for an offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A IPC. In the charge, it has been stated that on 21.2.1992 at 8.00 P.M. In the area of village Patrehri bus stand, Police Station Naraingarh, petitioner drove truck No. UP -15 - 2243 on a public place in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or likely to cause the death of Raj Kumar. In the same charge under Section 304 -A IPC for causing death of Raj Kumar was also framed. Due to typographical mistake time has been mentioned as 8.00 P.M., whereas occurrence had taken place at 8.00 A.M. Thereafter, prosecution examined three witnesses PW. 1 Sher Singh, PW. 2 Gurnam Singh and PW. 3 Lal Singh. These three witnesses are eye witnesses of the occurrence. Sher Singh has reiterated the version given by him in the FIR. It was stated by him in the FIR that his son was studying and was giving examination and when he was standing with his son who had alighted from the bus, then the offending truck bearing No. UP -15 -2243 driven by petitioner in rash and negligent manner came and hit his son Raj Kumar and front tyre of the truck had run over the head of deceased. Besides these three witnesses, two documents have been exhibited i.e. Ex. PA FIR and Ex. PB recovery memo of the truck. Prosecution has not examined the doctor who conducted the autopsy. Neither the Mechanic who examined the offending truck has been produced nor photographer has been produced nor the Investigating Officer has been examined and the site plan has also not been proved. Mr. Dinesh Arora, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State has brought to my notice order dated 6.9.1993, which reads as under: Pr. APP for the State Accused on bail 4 Pws present. Out of these, 3 PW examined, one given up by the Ld. APP. Criminal Revision No. 854 of 1996 3 The statement of accused Under Section 313 (a) Cr.P.C. Recorded in which he stated that although accident took place and deceased Raj Kumar died but it did not took place due to his rash and negligent driving but due to the negligence deceased who suddenly came before the truck while crossing road from the front side of the bus stand at the spot. In view of above state four Pws Mechanic, Photographer, doctor are given up. Now to come up on 12/10/93 for necessary Pws who be summoned for the date fixed. Sd/ - 6.9.93
(3.) THE question put before me is whether on a statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prosecution can be absolved of its duty to prove case by examining the doctor who conducted the autopsy as from the nature of injuries the Court can be enlightened regarding the nature of accident. Similarly, can photographer be withheld from the Court? Non -examination of the Investigating Officer and non -production of Draftsman who prepared the site plan cannot absolve prosecution from its duty as the prosecution case has to stand on its own legs. From the photographs, site plan, post mortem and the manner of investigation, the Court would have been able to formulate its own opinion.;