IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CRR-710-2014 (O&M)

Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Karan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Alisha Virdi, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2013 and order on quantum of sentence dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, in FIR No.217 dated 27.09.2007 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak District Rohtak, have been upheld.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2013 and was sentenced as follows:

MOHD YAKUB

2025.07.02 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.2007 at about 06:00 PM, the complainant, Nand Kishore, was returning from Sector 1, Rohtak to Kalanaur on his motorcycle Hero Honda CD Dawn, bearing registration No. HR-12F-2254. When he reached near Sector 1, Pullia No.3, Delhi Road, Rohtak, a bus bearing registration No.HR-62A-0426, Fatehabad Depot came from the side of Sheela Bypass, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and it hit his motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and the rear tyre of the bus ran over his right leg, causing serious injuries, which resulted into amputation. The driver of the bus fled away from the spot with the bus. The complainant was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by his relative Atul, and based on his complaint, the FIR (supra) was registered.

4. Learned amicus curiae, inter alia, contends that the identity of the petitioner has not been established by the prosecution as none of the witness has deposed that petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The statements of PW-3 and PW-1 bear no expression in their examination-in-chief regarding the identification of the petitioner before the learned trial Court. Further, the learned trial Court has fallen into grave error by relying upon the testimony of highly interested witnesses and there was no eye-witness to prove the alleged incident. Further PW-12, the doctor who treated the injured has proved that the injuries suffered by the injured are simple in nature. Moreover, the testimony of Investigating Officer ASI Ashok Kumar is also discrepant. The Investigating Officer was not present for his cross-

examination as such, the entire investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer remains un-proved. Further, the petitioner has been facing trial for more than 17 years, and as such, the learned Court below should have considered releasing him on probation under Section 361 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned amicus curiae lastly submits that the petitioner be released on probation in view of his age and good conduct.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court for causing injuries by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the medico-legal report of the injured duly proved the injuries suffered by him and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of injured witness. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. However, learned State counsel does not object to the restricted prayer made by learned amicus curiae for releasing the petitioner on probation. 6. After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the Court notes that Sections