IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

130 CRR-686-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 16.03.2026 Sandeep Kumar ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral CRM-11261-2026 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is hereby allowed. The delay of 156 days in filing the accompanying petition is ordered to be condoned.

CRR-686-2026

2. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.75 dated 08.04.2013 was lodged in Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. Once the FIR was lodged, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the petitioner was sent to face trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

3. The petitioner participated in the abovementioned trial, which by virtue of judgment dated 21.09.2018 culminated into his conviction. Thus, by virtue of order on quantum of sentence, of even date, the petitioner was awarded following sentences:-

All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The abovementioned appeal has been decided by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Yamuna Nagar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ only. The appeal, preferred by the petitioner, did not find favour before the learned Appellate Court, and the same has been dismissed by virtue of judgment dated 11.07.2025.

5. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2018, passed by the learned trial Court, and the judgment dated 11.07.2025, passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

6. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Dharam Pal’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 08.04.2013 at about 08:00-08:15 P.M. he along with Tajinder Pal Singh was going towards Sadhaura from Bilaspur on a motorcycle. According to complainant he was the pillion rider of the abovementioned motorcycle and Tajinder Pal Singh was driving the same and there was another motorcycle which was going ahead of them, driven by Kuldeep Singh. The wife of Kuldeep Singh, namely Pawan Kumari, was sitting on that motorcycle as pillion rider. As per complainant in the meantime, one truck bearing Registration No.HR-58A-0638 came and hit the motorcycle of abovenamed Kuldeep Singh, as a result of which he and his wife fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries on their persons.

7. It was alleged by the complainant that Pawan Kumari succumbed to injuries at the spot, whereas the tyre of truck crushed his brother Ram Lal due to which he died on the spot. As per complainant, the truck driver fled from the spot and the injured Kuldeep Singh was got admitted in PHC Bilaspur.

8. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation when all the necessary formalities, with regard to investigation, were completed and the entire evidence was collected, the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

was filed before the Court, for the trial of petitioner.

9. Heard.

10. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, being the outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court, vis-à-vis the learned Appellate Court,