IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (204)

CRR-3145-2009 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 Labh Singh ... .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Dharam Pal, AAG, Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/11.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal has been dismissed.

2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 15.08.1999. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 07/11/.11.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal. The Appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed on 17.11.2009. The instant revision petition was filed on 30.11.2001 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 25 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.08.1999 the complainant Roop Chand son of Kishori Lal was traveling in a vehicle Tata-407 bearing no. HR-32/0730 alongwith Roop Chand son of Geeta Ram, Ramdia son of Mansa Ram, Rishi Pal son of Mithu Ram, Sanjay son of Dharam Pal and other 10-12 persons and they were on the way to Kaithal to receive the dead body of Karam Chand son of Mithu Ram. After crossing Pharal Chowk Pundri, the driver Labh Singh started to drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent driving. He was also told by the complainant to drive the vehicle at a moderate speed. At around 9.00 pm., they arrived near the rice seller of Harbans Miglani. Suddenly, the driver Labh Singh (accused-petitioner), turned the vehicle to the other side and at that time he (accused/driver) was also driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of this, the vehicle rammed into the eucalyptus trees and all the passengers sustained multiple injuries. Roop Chand son of Geeta Ram died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of accused-petitioner/Labh Singh. On the basis of statement of complainant Roop Chand Ex.PW6/A, the Rukka Ex.PW9/A was forwarded to the police station upon which the FIR Ex.PW4/A was entered and endorsement Ex.PW4/B was effected on the Rukka. The investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the report under Section

173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court.

4. Finding a prima-facie case, the accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1/Rishi Pal son of Mithu Ram, PW-2/Dr. S.S. Dahiya Medical Officer, PW-3/Anil son of Kulwant Rai, PW-4/Jogi Ram ASI, PW-5/Satpal SI, PW-6/Roop Chand son of Kishori Lal, PW-7/Dr. D.C. Thukral, PW-8/Baljeet Singh Motor Mechanic, PW-9/Gurmail Singh SI, PW-10/Vinod son of Ramdhari, PW- 11/Tarsem Singh, PW-12/Roshan son of Ramdia and PW-13/Naresh Kumar Retired inspector.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded his innocence and false implication.

7. Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07/11.11.2008 as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

8. The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 17.11.2009.

9. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.

10. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contends that the judgments of conviction are based on conjectures and surmises. The