Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puranmal vs State Of Haryana on 5 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154820
2023: PHHC: 154820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRR-1967-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on: 01.12.2023
Pronounced on: 05.12.2023
PURANMAL . . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana . . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Vikas Gulia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Petitioner faced trial in a case arising out of FIR No.12 dated
07.01.2016 registered at Police Station Ganaur, Sonepat under Sections 279/
337/304A IPC.
2. Vide judgment dated 08.12.2022 passed by ld. JMIC, Ganaur,
the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, though
acquitted under Section 337 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of `1000/- for
committing offence under Section 304A IPC with default sentence. He was
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months
and to pay fine of `1000/- for committing offence under Section 279 IPC
with default sentence. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by ld.
Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 23.08.2023.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154820
CRR-1967-2023 2023: PHHC: 154820
3. Against the aforesaid conviction as recorded by the trial Court
on 08.12.2022 and affirmed by the Appellate Court on 23.08.2023, the
present revision is filed.
4. It is contended that both the Courts below failed to take note of
the fact that complainant-Pankaj was the eye witness of the accident but his
testimony does not find corroboration from any independent witness.
Besides, as per his testimony, he came to know about the name of the driver,
when he had come to his house for the purpose of compromise. Courts
below also failed to take note of the fact that MLR and the post-mortem
report were not proved on record. Besides, identity of the petitioner as the
driver of the offending vehicle was not established and so, in all the
circumstances, he deserves to be acquitted by setting aside the judgments
passed by the Courts below.
5. Upon notice, ld. State counsel appeared and defended the
impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of the revision.
6. Having considered submission of both the sides, I find no merit
in the petition.
7. The testimony of PW7 Pankaj, who proved the manner of
accident, cannot be doubted having regard to the fact that he was present in
the same car, in which the two deceased Jagjeet and Virender were sitting.
He clearly testified that he had noted the registration number of the
offending trolla to be RJ-14-GE-2856 and have seen the driver of the
offending vehicle. It is clarified by him that as far as name of the driver is
concerned, he came to know about the same later on, when said driver came
to his home for compromising the matter. In these circumstances, when PW7
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154820
CRR-1967-2023 2023: PHHC: 154820
had seen the driver-petitioner at the spot itself and simply came to know his
name later on, the statement of PW7 does not become doubtful.
8. Further, statement of PW10-Bhawani Singh Rathore, the owner
of the offending vehicle is very material, who clearly testified that his
vehicle i.e., RJ-14-GE-2856 was being driven by the accused Puranmal on
06.01.2016 i.e., date of accident and that he was informed about the accident
on the next date by the driver. PW10 also testified that he had got the vehicle
released on superdari and had produced the accused before the Police. He
categorically denied the suggestion that accused present in Court was not the
driver of his vehicle.
9. No enmity on the part of PW7 to the petitioner-accused is
pointed and so, there was no reason for PW7 to depose against the petitioner.
Similarly, PW10 was the owner of the offending vehicle, who had employed
the petitioner as his driver and so, there is no reason to disbelieve his
testimony.
10. As far as not examining the Doctor, who conducted the
post-mortem examination, is concerned, it is also immaterial in the facts and
circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, when the two deceased were taken
to the hospital from the spot, they were declared brought dead. Both the
deceased were duly identified by PW1, PW2 and PW6. In these
circumstances, in case the trial Court has taken into consideration the post-
mortem reports available on record, no fault can be found in it, as there
could be no dispute regarding the proximity between the accident and the
cause of death.
11. No other point was argued.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154820
CRR-1967-2023 2023: PHHC: 154820
12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
merit in the revision petition.
Dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
05.12.2023
Vivek
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
2. Whether reportable? No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154820
4 of 4
