203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1058-2010 Date of Decision:30.03.2026 Bhupinder Singh …Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2008, passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and was sentenced as under:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2002 ASI Lalinder Singh recorded the statement of complainant Mahasha Singh at Bus Stand Sardulgarh to the effect that he is resident of Village Rorki and was an agriculturist. On 19.09.2002, he alongwith Sukhwinder Singh S/o Bharpur Singh were standing on the main Sardulgarh Sirsa road at the bus stand of village Rorki. He was to go to Sirsa on that day. At about 10.25 A.M., his cousin Sandip Singh was returning from school after appearing in the examination. He was standing on road towards Village Rorki. At that time one Tata Sumo jeep came from Sardulgarh side at a high speed and was being driven in rash and negligent manner. It collided with Sandip Singh and the driver escaped alongwith the jeep. The jeep was bearing No.HR-23-A-0481, which was noted down by the complainant. It was being driven by a person appearing to be Muslim. Sandip Singh was strained with blood due to the injuries and was taken care of by the complainant. Soon after his paternal uncle Sukhdev Singh alongwith Sukhwinder Singh came to the spot on a scooter and the injured Sandip Singh was moved to the Civil Hospital, Sardulgarh. The doctor referred the injured to the hospital of Dr.Dinesh Gupta Neuro Surgeon Power House Road, Bathinda as the condition of the injured was critical. The injured was then taken to the above said hospital. He had suffered injuries on his face. On the basis of this statement, FIR was registered and investigation was taken up. On 01.10.2002 the doctor gave the opinion that the injuries are dangerous to life. Accordingly, offence under section 338 IPC was added. On 17.10.2002 the accused was arrested and the Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. HR-23-A-0481 was taken into police possession. On completion of investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the Court.

3. After perusing the challan and accompanying documents, the Trial Court found that a prima facie case under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC was made out against the accused and he was charge-sheeted accordingly. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by the Trial Court.

4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. PW-1 Mukhtiar Singh, Mechanic, PW-2 Dr. Dinesh Gupta, Neuro Surgeon, PW-3 Mahasha Singh, complainant, PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh, PW-5 Sukhdev Singh, PW-6 Avtar Singh, Junior Assistant, PW-7 Sant Singh, PW-8 ASI Lalinder Singh and PW-9 Sandip Singh and closed the prosecution evidence.

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he pleaded that he had been falsely involved in the present case. No evidence in his defence was led by the accused.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he