Advocates:
['RAVI KIRAN DAHIYA', 'AG HY', 'KL BAGGA', '']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.101 of 2001

Date of Decision : August 17, 2010

Maha Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :

Mr. Ravi Kiran Dahiya, Advocate

Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

T.P.S. MANN, J.

This revision had been filed by the petitioner under

Section 401 Cr.P.C. against his conviction and sentence for

offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC as ordered by

Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sonepat on 12/13.8.1999 and

upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 5.1.2001 by

dismissing his appeal.

According to the prosecution, on 18.3.1992

complainant- Sultan Singh alongwith his brother's wife Raj Bala

and his niece Jyoti, daughter of Jai Dev, aged about 3½ years,

was returning to his house from Gitwar situated on the out skirts

of the village. When they were present on the kacha berm of

the road, a mini bus bearing registration No.HR-10-2900 driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the side

of Auchandi border and while coming to the wrong side of the

Criminal Revision No.101 of 2001

-2-

road, struck Miss Jyoti. On account of the impact, Jyoti sustained

injuries on her head as well as hands. After the occurrence, the

driver stopped the bus at some distance and revealed his

identity as Maha Singh. Thereafter, he managed to escape

alongwith the bus towards Kharkhoda. The injured was

immediately taken to P.G.I., Rohtak by her father Jai Dev,

where she succumbed to her injuries.

Initially, FIR No.89 dated 18.3.1992 was registered

at Police Station Kharkhoda for offences under Sections 279 and

337 IPC on the statement of complainant-Sultan Singh.

However, after the death of Jyoti, offence under Section 304-A

IPC was added to the heading of the FIR.

After completion of the investigation and

presentation of the challan by the police, the petitioner was tried

for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined

complainant-Sultan Singh as PW1, Smt. Raj Bala, an eye-

witness and mother of the deceased as PW2, Jai Dev, father of

the deceased as PW3, Ram Parkash, Motor-Mechanic as PW4,

HC Balwan Singh as PW5, Zile Singh, Duty Inspector of Haryana

Roadways as PW6, HC Krishan Chander as PW7 and Dr.

Narender Singh as PW8.

Criminal Revision No.101 of 2001

-3-

When the petitioner was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., he denied all the allegations levelled against him and

pleaded that he was innocent. However, he did not examine any

defence evidence.

The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the

parties and examining the evidence available on the record,

believed the prosecution case and convicted the petitioner for

the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three

months on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for a

period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on the

second. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was

sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 15 days. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

The conviction and sentences of the petitioner were

upheld by the lower appellate Court by dismissing the appeal

filed by him.

I had heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

The plea of the petitioner was that it was Jyoti, who

was responsible for the accident as she suddenly started

Criminal Revision No.101 of 2001

-4-

crossing the road without caring for the traffic on the road and

her mother and uncle did not take proper care of her. Instead,

they allowed her to move ahead of them by two feet. Therefore,

the conviction of the p