The main legal point established is that rash and negligent driving resulting in death is punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the court has the discretion to reduce the substantive sentence based on the circumstances of the case and relevant legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment dated 6.6.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the judgment of conviction dated 18.2.2014 and order of sentence dated 19.2.2014, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, were upheld.

2. The petitioner was tried for committing the offences under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). As per the prosecution, the petitioner being driver of Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-25-GA-1675, had, while driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner, struck the same against Karnal Singh, who along with Ishar Jogi had gone to the house of Surjit Gujjar for confectioner work in the marriage of his son. The Tata 407 vehicle in which D.J. (Dance Junction) was installed, had caused the accident near Nehru College, Hansi. Karnail Singh was taken to the General Hospital, Hansi where he died. On the statement of complainant Mehtab Singh (father of the deceased), FIR No. 232 dated 7.5.2009 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station City Hansi.

3. On the basis of the evidence led, the guilt of the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC stood proved. He was, accordingly, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 304-A and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, vide judgment dated 6.6.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. ,

5. Admittedly, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, death of Karnail Singh, had been caused. The learned trial Court after having scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution had fully proved that on 6.5.2009, at about 10.30 P.M., in front of Nehru College, Hansi, the petitioner drove Tata 407 in such a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety to others and that by said rash and negligent act, he had caused the death of Karnail Singh. The said finding was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality and material irregularity inasmuch, the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration that the accident in question took place on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased, who died in a roadside accident. It is further argued that the petitioner was driving the truck at a moderate speed and the same cannot be said to be a high speed so as to treat the same as rash and negligent driving.

6. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was registered on the statement of Mehtab Singh, who had been examined as PW-2. The said witness admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present at the spot when the accident took place and the entire incident was narrated to him by his elder son Jarnail Singh. This witness had further stated that Jarnail Singh was the only eye witness of the accident who was examined by the prosecution as PW-8. However, at the first instance, in his statement recorded by the police, he had stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had fled away from the spot af