IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRR-2167-2007 (O&M) Reserved on:-04.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 10.02.2026 Uploaded on:-13.02.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Jagat Ram (since deceased) through LR ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment dated 22.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnanagar and judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 22.11.2004 passed by the Court of the learned Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, in FIR No.6 dated 25.01.1999, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC at Police Station Nangal, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as follows:

It was also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.01.1999 at about 11:30 AM, the complainant Amar Nath along with his wife Uma Devi was travelling on scooter No. PBW-6964 towards Kishanpur. It was alleged that near the Police Post, Nangal Dam, a bus bearing No. HP-53-0211, belonging to Baijnath Depot, Himachal Pradesh, allegedly driven by the accused Jagat Ram, came from the Una side at a high speed and hit the scooter from behind. It was alleged that due to the impact, both the occupants fell down and the front wheel of the bus ran over the legs of Uma Devi, causing grievous injuries, while Amar Nath allegedly sustained simple injuries. Initially, the injured Uma Devi was taken to BBMB Hospital, Nangal, from where she was referred to NFL, Naya Nangal and thereafter shifted to Government Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. A ruqa was sent by the hospital on 24.01.1999, and the statement of Amar Nath was recorded on 25.01.1999, after which the FIR was registered with a delay of about 30 hours.

3. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. Copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied, and charges were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. PW-1 Uma Devi (injured) deposed regarding the occurrence but categorically stated that she did not see the driver of the bus and came to know about his identity only through police officials. PW-3 Amar Nath, complainant, claimed to have seen the petitioner driving the bus and attributed the accident to rash and negligent driving.

5. The prosecution also examined medical witnesses to prove the nature of injuries, mechanical experts to prove the condition of the vehicles, and the Investigating Officer to prove the investigation. Medical evidence indicated that Uma Devi sustained both simple and grievous injuries, whereas Amar Nath sustained simple injuries.

6. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all allegations, pleaded false implication, and asserted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No defence evidence was led.

7. The Learned Trial Court framed points for determination regarding (i) identity of the driver, (ii) rashness and negligence, and (iii) causation of injuries. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence,