Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 117 (PNJ)

Deep Chand v. State of Haryana

2003-01-22

R.L.ANAND

body2003
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - I am disposing of this revision with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the respondent as nobody has turned up from side of the petitioner. 2. This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 17.7.1992 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year. 3. The facts of this case are as follows :- Shri Bijender Pal Singh son of Kishan Lal was working as Clerk in Irrigation Department at Palwal. On 20.10.1988, at about 1.30 p.m. he along with his brother Pat Ram came to Palwal on motor cycle No. HRP-846 to purchase some household articles. When they were returning back and were crossing the road leading to village Alhapur, they heard the call from the back from Sumer Singh. The stopped and while they were talking with Sumer Singh, a half body truck No. HRW 2961 driven by accused dashed into the motor-cycle of Bijender Pal Singh and Pat Ram resulting into death of Pat Ram and injuries to others. The motor-cycle was badly damaged in the accident which had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of said half body truck by the accused. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined PW1 Bijender Pal Singh, PW2 Sumer Singh, PW3 Baldev Raj, Photographer, PW4 Hari Singh, PW5 Rajender Singh, PW6 Dr. Anil Malik and PW7 ASI Puran Mal, the Investigating Officer. 5. The offence stands proved from the statement of PW1 Bijender Pal Singh and PW2 Sumer Singh, the eye witnesses of the case and also from the statement of PW6 Dr. Anil Malik, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. From the statements of the eye witnesses it stands established that the death of Pat Ram took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. The only submission which was raised before the first Appellate Court is that the petitioner has been substituted in place of another person who, in fact, was driving the truck. This submission is without any force. Law of substitution is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence. The only submission which was raised before the first Appellate Court is that the petitioner has been substituted in place of another person who, in fact, was driving the truck. This submission is without any force. Law of substitution is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence. In view of the direct evidence of the eye witnesses, I am of the opinion that the present crime has been committed by the present petitioner who had no defence either before the trial Court or before the first Appellate Court. 6. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner is hereby maintained, but keeping in view the fact that he is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings since 20.10.1988 his sentence is hereby reduced to six months under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code which shall run concurrently with the sentences awarded under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code The fine is not disturbed. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Petition dismissed.