IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

247 CRR-2308-2015 (O&M).

Decided on: November 17, 2025.

RAJU ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT: Ms. Kritika, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon, in case arising out of FIR No.143 dated 29.05.2013, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurgaon whereby the petitioner had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 of the IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and one year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Further challenge is also to the judgment dated 30.05.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby Criminal Appeal No.21 of 23.02.2015, preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed and prayer for the grant of probation was also declined.

3. It is noticed by this Court that out of the last 12 occasions when the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner had not appeared on 10 occasions. On the two occasions where he appeared, even on those dates, he made a request for an adjournment. The matter pertains to the year 2015 and already a period of more than 10 years has elapsed since then. Adjudication of the matter cannot be prolonged for want of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner, hence, it is deemed appropriate to take up the matter for consideration on merits by appointment of a legal-aid-counsel.

4 Accordingly, Ms. Kritika who is present in the court is appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel to assist this court on behalf of petitioner(s).

5 A copy of the paper book has been supplied to the legal-aid-

counsel. She has gone through the same and made her submissions.

FACTS IN BRIEF

6 The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of Devraj, son of Shri Ram Kishan, who stated that he is a property dealer by profession. He alleged that on 29.05.2013, while travelling from his office in Sector-57, Gurgaon to his residence in Padwala in his Alto car (No. DL-9CQ-3847), he observed a motorcyclist ahead of him near the Daultabad flyover. When they reached near JPM Company, a HYWA truck, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck the motorcycle. The motorcyclist fell on the roadside, and the motorcycle came under the front tyre of the HYWA, which dragged him for about 15–20 steps before stopping. On alighting from his vehicle, the complainant identified the motorcyclist as his nephew, Sunil Kumar, son of Randhir Singh, resident of Padwala, P.S. Khurd, New Delhi, who had died on the spot due to the injuries sustained. A crowd gathered at the place of occurrence, the HYWA driver fled, abandoning the vehicle, bearing registration No. HR-55G-5981. The complainant, accordingly, sought appropriate action against the accused.

7. On the statement of complainant, the FIR was registered. During investigation statements of witnesses was recorded, medical evidence was collected, rough site plan was prepared and on completion of investigation, challan against the above petitioner-accused was presented before the court.

8. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged for offences under Section 279 and 304A of IPC.

9. To prove its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses whereafter prosecution evidence was closed on 09.02.2015.

10. The statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances and evi