Rash & Negligent Driving--Non examination of Investigating Officer--Not a fatal defect.

Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, in the wake of complaint (Ex.PA) of complainant Yashpal (PW1), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-convict, by means of FIR No.449 dated 28.9.2003, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Fatehabad.

2. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the petitioner-convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days for the commission of offence punishable u/s 279 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of six months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days u/s 337 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days u/s 304-A IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by way of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P3).

3. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner-convict was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P1).

4. The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant revision-petition, to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this context.

6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal case, so, the petitioner-convict is entitled to acquittal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

7. As is evident from the record, the prosecution claimed that the accident in question had taken place on 28.9.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner-convict while driving a Haryana Roadways Bus, bearing registration No.HR46B-7265 (for brevity “the offending Bus”), in which, Kaura Singh, Shiv Shanker and Madhu Ram received injuries, whereas Chhabil Dass & Dharambir alias Dholia sustained grievous injuries, culminating into their death.

8. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges against the petitioner-convict, examined complainant Yashpal (PW1), other eye/injured witnesses Hari Singh (PW5), Ram Mehar (PW6), Madhu Ram (PW8), Shiv Shanker (PW9), Sagar alias Sunder (PW12), Dr.Anita Bansal (PW3), Dr.Rajiv Chauhan (PW10) & Dr.Veenu Dhanda (PW13). Tirlok Chand, Mechanic (PW2) proved the mechanic report (Ex.PW2/A). Rajinder Singh (PW11) identified the dead body of Dharambir (deceased), whereas Rakesh Kumar (PW12) identified the dead body of Chhabil Dass (deceased). HC Raghbir Singh (PW4) & SI Satbir Singh (PW7)testified their respective investigation. PW1 complainant Yashpal, PW5 Hari Singh, PW6 Ram Mehar, PW8 Madhu Ram & PW12 Sagar alias Sunder injured/eye witnesses have categorically stated, on oath, that the petitioner-convict was driving the offending Bus very rashly and negligently and caused the death of Chhabil Dass & Dharambir alias Dholia (deceased). Instead of reproducing their statements in toto and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the injured/eye witnesses have duly corroborated the prosecution version on all vital counts. They were cross-examined at length