IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 16.02.2026 Date of Decision :28.04.2026 Rakesh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

Aggrieved of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Ist Class Hansi, and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/convict, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only.

2 In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that, that for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’ only, the FIR No.250 dated 11.05.1997, was lodged in Police Station Narnaund. The above mentioned FIR came into being on the statement of ‘Riki Kesh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, who stated that on 11.05.1997, he along with his father had gone to the bus stand of their village to see-off their guest, and that after the departure of guest when his father was about to go back to his village, one four wheeler, bearing registration No.HR-32-0827, came from village ‘Moth’

side. As per complainant the driver of the above mentioned vehicle was driving the abovesaid vehicle it in a rash and negligent manner and hit his father resulting into his death.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned statement formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation the accused was arrested and remaining formalities with regard to investigation of the case were completed and the accused was sent to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hansi, to face trial for the commission of above mentioned offence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

4. The above mentioned trial culminated into conviction of the petitioner and following sentence was awarded by the learned trial Court:-

279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (five hundreds). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for 15 days (fifteen days).

304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (one thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for one month.

5. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The above mentioned appeal was dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ only. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour in the Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the learned Appellate Court, are outcome of non-application of mind, and that without application of judicial mind and without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law (including precedents) the judgment of conviction has been rendered by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the evidence adduced by the prosecution was inadequate to prove the charge against the petitioner, and that an error of judgment has been committed by the learned trial Court, and the learned Appellate Court.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the evidence adduced by the prosecution was contradictory on all material points and the most essential ingredient supposed to be proved for proving charge under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, i.e. rash and negligent driving, was not duly established by the prosecution. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the