IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (101)

CRR-1939-2009 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 Roop Singh ... .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Dharam Pal, AAG, Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 13.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/26.03.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, has been dismissed.

2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 14.06.1999. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 24/26.03.2008 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The Appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed on 13.07.2009. The instant revision petition was filed on

29.07.2009 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 26 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

3. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.06.1999, Chiranji Lal son of Biru Ram gave a statement to the police to the effect that he was working on Lucky Food Plaza as a cobbler. On that day, he was working on his shop. From the side of Pipli a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-01-1051 bearing three riders driven in a proper manner was going. At the same time, a four-wheeler bearing registration No. PB-11E-3657 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle, due to which motorcyclists received injuries. The driver of the motorcycle died at the spot. The remaining two injured were admitted in CHC Shahabad. Necessary legal action was sought. On this statement, the formal FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Investigation was set into motion. Site plan was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested in this case. After completing all other usual acts of investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted in the Court for trial.

4. After perusing the document and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and charge was framed accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 C. Ashok Kumar, PW2 Chiranji Lal, PW3 Dr. Mrs. Sunita Kumari (wrongly written as PW2), PW4 Dr. C.R. Khatri (wrongly written as PW3), PW5 Ajaib Singh (wrongly written as PW4), PW6 Mohinder Singh (wrongly written as PW5), PW7 Balak Ram (wrongly written as PW6), PW8 HC Krishan Kumar (wrongly written as PW7), PW9 Gurmeet Singh (wrongly written as PW8), PW10 Daljit Singh( wrongly written as PW9), PW11 ASI Krishan Lal (Wrongly written as PW10). Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of court.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he claimed false implication. However, no defense evidence was led by him.

7. Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/26.03.2008 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, Kurukshetra, vide judgment dated 13.07.2009.

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

10. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated

23.09.2009.

11. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contends that the judgments of conviction are based on conjectures and surmises. There is no evidence of