The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of rash and negligent driving, valid identification of the accused, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in determining the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Sirsa, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sirsa, has been dismissed.

2. The prosecution in the present case had been launched upon a written complaint Ex.PW2/A of one Kapil inter alia with the allegation that on 03.11.2012 he along with his uncle Sahab Ram, Surender and Kuldeep were going to get repaired one pick-up bearing registration No. HR575886 which was out of order, by dragging it with the help of another pick-up bearing registration No.HR99MH(T)7410 from village Badopal at 1:00 PM. Sahab Ram and Kuldeep were in one vehicle, and he and Surender were in another vehicle. Vehicle No.HR57-5886 was dragged with the help of vehicle No.HR99MH(T) 7410. At around 4:00 PM, when they reached near Khatu Shyam Petrol Pump of village Bhavdin they stopped their vehicle to ease themselves. At that very moment, one Canter which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed, which was coming from Fatehabad came and directly smashed into the Vehicle No.HR57-5886. Due to the impact, this vehicle over-turned and the vehicle which was ahead of it, was thrown into the pit. The complainant alleged that due to the impact, all of them received injuries and Sahab Ram died at the spot, while Surender died later on. When he saw the number of the canter, it was found to be HR-57-5501. The driver of the canter ran away from the spot. The injured were taken to hospital in ambulance. Action against the unknown driver was sought and consequently, the present FIR No.171 was registered on 03.11.2012.

3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation began and the accused was formally arrested after completion of the investigation, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court and the accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined C-Ram Kumar as PW-1 who deposed that after receipt of information of accident on 03.11.2012, he reached at the place of occurrence, where he met Kapil and recorded his statement. Proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of Sahab Ram were conducted. He took all the three vehicles into police possession vide memo Ex.P1/A. He witnessed this recovery.

5. Prosecution further examined ASI Rajesh Kumar as PW-2 who deposed that on 03.11.2012 after receipt of information of accident, he reached at the place of occurrence where Kapil gave his statement Ex.PW2/A. He sent information Ex.PW2/B upon which FIR Ex.PW2/C was registered. He conducted proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW2/D. He prepared site plan Ex.PW2/E and took the accidented vehicle in police possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He deposed to prove photographs Ex.PW2/F1 to Ex.PW2/F17. He recorded statement of witnesses, reached GH Sirsa, moved application Ex.PW2/G wherein Kuldeep and Surender were stated to be referred to Rohtak PGI. He moved an application Ex.PW2/H upon which postmortem of deceased-Sahab Ram was conducted on the next day. Thereafter on 04.11.2012 after receipt of information of the death of Surender he along with Bal Krishan reached CMC Hisar and got his postmortem conducted. He arrested the accused on 26.11.2012 and got the accidented vehicle mechanically examined and after completion of the investigation, the final report was forwarded by SI Chand Singh. He identified his signatures.

6. PW-3 Kapil while deposing before the Court stated more or less in the same manner as alleged by him in his statement Ex.PW2/A. He identified the accused present in the Court and further stated tha