IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 16.09.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 Radha Krishan Pilley ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. Aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated 14.01.2006, and order of sentence dated 16.01.2006, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Rewari, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’, and the judgment dated 19.11.2007, in appeal, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Rewari, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that both the judgments, i.e. judgments passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, the same deserve to be set aside.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that with regard to a motor vehicular accident, the FIR No.23 dated 03.05.2001 was lodged in Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. It was recorded in the FIR that on 03.05.2001, one Shimbu Dayal (complainant) and Shamsher Yadav performed their duty in Asahi Safety Glass Factory till 06:00 pm, and after duty hours, he along with Shamsher Yadav went to STD Booth. According to complainant, when Shamsher Yadav came out of STD Booth, and was on the southern side of the road, a car being driven in fast speed, and in a rash and negligent manner, came from Delhi side, and hit Shamsher Yadav. As per above-named complainant, due to the impact of collision with the car, Shamsher Yadav fell down, and suffered injuries, which proved to be fatal. It was also stated by the complainant that registration number of the car was DDU-7197, and that the name of its driver, as disclosed by him, was ‘Radha Krishan Pilley S/o Gopal Pilley, the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR in this case was lodged, the investigation was taken up, and during the course of investigation, when all the necessary formalities were completed and the entire evidence was collected, the petitioner was sent to face trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside being an 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, have failed to appreciate the fact that the necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Sections 279/304A of IPC were not established by the prosecution as per the standard required under the law.

6. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty and the abovementioned judgment of learned trial Court has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant revision petition, the petitioner is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present petition the petitioner is only challenging the order on the quantum of sentence.

7. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2001, and that upon completion of trial, when the petitioner was convicted, he prefer