Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Singh @ Vicky vs State Of Haryana on 16 April, 2012
Crl. Rev. No.2452 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Rev. No.2452 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.04.2012
Vikram Singh @ Vicky ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Crl. Rev. No.37 of 2012 (O&M)
Ajay Kumar Kohli ....Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Singh @ Vicky and another ...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
Both the Criminal Revision No.2452 of 2011 and Criminal Revision No.37 of 2012 are being decided by passing a common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.2452 of 2011.
Criminal Revision No.2452 of 2011 has been filed for setting aside the Order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous Crl. Rev. No.2452 of 2011 2 imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Criminal Rev. No.37 of 2012 has been filed praying for enhancement of punishment.
While praying for setting aside the impugned Order and judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no identification parade of the accused was got conducted. The statement of PW-2 Ajay Kumar Kohli, who is shown to be an eye witness of the occurrence, cannot be relied upon as his presence at the place of occurrence is totally doubtful and further did not appreciate the fact that the alleged accident is a motor vehicle accident involving two vehicles bearing registration No.HR-01-4710 and offending truck bearing registration No.HR-37-7997 as per prosecution story. PW-3 who claims herself to be the eye-witness to the accident has not mentioned the registration numbers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, which clearly makes the presence of the vehicle of the petitioner at the place of occurrence doubtful.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, while vehemently opposing the said revision petition submitted that it is a case of rash and negligent driving. The petitioner had run away from the spot and had run over the deceased. It is further stated that he has already prayed for enhancement of the said sentence vide Criminal Revision No.37 of 2012.
Heard.
As per the prosecution story, the deceased had stopped his Crl. Rev. No.2452 of 2011 3 scooter at red light signal. The offending truck came at a fast speed and hit the deceased who was standing with his scooter at red light signal and ran over him. In stead of stopping the truck immediately, the petitioner stopped at a little distance and fled from the spot. The truck was taken into custody.
The presence of the witness Ajay Kumar Kohli is duly explained. He is the son of the deceased. He worked as a Law Officer in State Bank of India, Ludhiana. On the date of the incident, Ajay Kumar Kohli alongwith his wife were coming back in their car after attending the Court at Chandigarh. At about 3.00 p.m., when they reached near Electricity Board Colony, Dhulkot, they met their father who was going on a two wheeler bearing registration No.HR1N-4710. His father was going on two wheeler just in front of their car. At about 3.10 p.m., they stopped their car because of the red signal. His father, too, stopped. Immediately, the offending truck came and hit the two wheeler which was being driven by his father.
The prosecution also examined PW-3 Sadhna Kohli wife of Ajay Kumar Kohli, PW-4 Ashwani Kumar Sood s/o Kamal Raj Sood, PW-5 Head Constable Subhash Chander, PW-6 Dhanraj Sharma, PW-7 ASI Atma Ram and PW-8 Head Constable Baljit Singh. Driving at high speed at busy traffic is a gross act of negligence. Therefore, there is no doubt that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner while driving the truck at a high speed in a busy area. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The same is reasonable and not on the higher side.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
However, taking into account that the petitioner is 28 years of Crl. Rev. No.2452 of 2011 4 age and has been facing trial since the year 2004 and is the only bread winner in his family, no ground for enhancement of the sentence is made out.
In view of the above, the order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City is upheld and both the revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 16.04.2012 JUDGE gurpreet