KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) AT the outset, Mr. P.K. Khindria, Advocate, has stated that he will not be able to assail the conviction of the petitioner. He has very fairly contended that he had read the testimony of PW.7 Ved Parkash and Mr. Khindria says that Appellate Court below was right when it observed that no corroboration is required to the testimony of PW.7 Ved Parkash. Therefore, he has stated that no advantage will be gained by pressing the argument that PW.1 Jog Raj has not supported the prosecution.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that petitioner was sent for trial in case FIR No. 67 dated 5.3.1987 registered at Police Station Ganaur under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Case of the prosecution is that on 5.3.1987, Bansi Lal Assistant Sub Inspector along with other police officials were present at G.T. Road near village Teha on patrol duty when PW.1 Jog Raj came there and stated that he had a hotel at G.T. Road and when he and Ved Parkash PW.7 were standing in front of their hotel and waiting for milk vendor, at that time one Maruti Car bearing No. DBC 6145 came from the side of Delhi and then the offending truck bearing No. DEL-4715 being driven by the petitioner came at a very high speed and due to rash and negligent driving truck hit the Car and caused death of Man Singh son of Dalip Singh. Learned trial Court after placing reliance upon the testimony of PW.7 Ved Parkash convicted petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and awarded three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and nine months rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that since the present occurrence pertains to year 1987, about 21 years are going to lapse and the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial. He has further stated that the petitioner has undergone ten days out of his actual sentence of nine months. It is further contended that petitioner was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Now he has fastened himself with responsibilities of family and the children. His children are of marriageable age and in case petitioner is sent behind the bars, unnecessary stigma will be caused to the children and their matrimonial prospects will be affected.;