The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on eyewitness testimonies and material evidence to establish the accused's guilt for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant is a barber. On 28.03.2011 at around 5.15 pm, the complainant alongwith his wife on his motorcycle bearing no. HR30E-1810 Make Hero Honda CD Dawn was going to the village Hasanpur. The complainant was also accompanied by his brother -in-law Narender Kumar who was on another motorcycle bearing no. UP13-1533 marka Hero Honda CD Deluxe. The brother-in-law of the complainant was riding in front of them and when they reached Chandhut Police Station near Yamuna Bridge, a truck bearing no. RJ-02GA-2099, whose driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle of Narender Kumar due to which he fell on the road and received injuries. The complainant drove his motorcycle off the road in order to save himself but the unknown driver drove his truck in a rash and negligent manner and struck Narender Kumar from behind and he succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. The driver ran away from the spot leaving his truck there and at that time the complainant saw the driver. He prayed for action against the accused.

3. On the same day i.e 28.03.2011 after getting the intimation that an accident had occurred near the police station between a motorcycle and a truck, ASI Virender Singh along with HC Devender Kumar and Ct. Maan Singh reached the spot and met the complainant namely Kunwar Pal who got his statement recorded upon which formal FIR no. 57 was registered against the accused. Site plan Ex. PW7/D was prepared. The truck bearing no. RJ02 GA-2099 was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW6/A. The report of the mechanical examination of the offending vehicle Ex. PW8/A was obtained. The driving license of the accused and RC of the offending vehicle were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW6/B. The accused was arrested and on completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.

4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, he was accordingly charge-sheeted, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Hoshiyar @ Kunwar Pal as PW1, Suman as PW2, Dr. Udaideep as PW3, Ct. Man Singh as PW4, Balkishan as PW5, HC Devender Kumar as PW6, IO ASI Virender Singh as PW7 and ASI Tejpal as PW8 and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by court order VOD 04.05.2015 as the prosecution failed to conclude its entire evidence despite several effective opportunities. PW Raj, the photographer in the present case had died and could not be examined as a witness.

6. The statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him to which the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence evidence the accused did not examine any witness and closed the same.

7. The details of the prosecution witnesses examined are as under:-

"To prove the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC the prosecution was to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle and riding on a public way and such driving or riding of the vehicle was in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.

PW1 Hoshiyar @ Kunwar Pal who is the complainant in the present case, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused came from behind while driving the truck at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently and after crossing the