Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Chandila vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037423
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:037423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 2658 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved On: 07.03.2024
Pronounced On: 14.03.2024
Ravi Chandila
.......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued By: Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate
for the petitioner-convict.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State of Haryana
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
In a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 16 dated 11.01.2013,
under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station Central Faridabad, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated
20.02.2019 and sentenced vide order of even date passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, in the following manner:-
Offence / Under Section Imprisonment
279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months
304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
custody period of the petitioner during trial of the case was ordered to be set
off from the above sentences.
[2] The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2019 was dismissed by
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037423
learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 25.07.2019.
[3] Brief facts of the case are that on 11.01.2013, an information
was received from Guard of B.K. Hospital, Faridabad at Police Post Sector-6
that Navneet Sachdeva and Deepakshi Sachdeva, residents of 3H/81, NIT,
Faridabad were brought dead in the hospital. On the basis of this
information, ASI Pawan Kumar (PW-10) accompanied by other police
officials reached the hospital and collected ruqqa. Surender Kumar (PW-4)
approached him and got recorded his statement to the effect that he was
working as a supervisor in Vama Engineering, NIT Faridabad. On that day,
on account of some work of the company, he had gone towards Old
Faridabad on his motor-cycle No. HR-51AS-4036 and at about 3.15 p.m.,
after crossing old chowk, he was moving towards NIT, Faridabad. A scooty
bearing Regn. No. HR-51AK-7729 being driven by his neighbourer Navneet
Sachdeva son of Kishan Gopal Sachdeva was moving ahead of him and
Deepakshi Sachdeva (sister of Navneet Sachdeva) was pillion rider. When
the scooty reached in front of Bikaner Sweets, Sector-16A, a truck loaded
with cement bags came being driven at fast speed in a rash and negligent
manner, struck the scooty from behind, due to which, Navneet Sachdeva &
Deepakshi Sachdeva fell down. The truck crushed the head of Navneet
Sachdeva and the thighs of Deepakshi Sachdeva. The truck number was
noticed to be HR-55E-1354. The truck driver fled away from the spot. Both
Navneet Sachdeva & Deepakshi Sachdeva died at the spot, who were taken
to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and legal action prayed against the drive of truck
for the said incident.
[4] On finding a prima facie case, the petitioner-accused was
charge-sheeted under Sections 279, & 304-A of IPC to which, he pleaded
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037423
not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as ten
witnesses to prove its case. The statement of accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all incriminating material put to him
and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in his
defence.
[5] After appreciating the material available on record, the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide
judgment dated 20.02.2019 as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad,
which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.07.2019. Hence, the present
revision petition.
[6] Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no
cogent evidence which could suggest that the petitioner was driving the
truck in a rash and negligent manner. He further contended that the
Investigating Officer, SI Jaibir Singh, who conducted the investigation, and
other material witnesses were not examined. He also pointed out that since
the petitioner has completed the sentence imposed upon him by the trial
Court and stood released from the jail; thus, nothing survives for
adjudication in the present petition as the same has become infructuous.
[7] On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the
prayer made in the present petition; however, he has not disputed the factum
of release of the petitioner after completion of his sentence.
[8] After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book / relevant record, this Court finds no merit in the
present petition.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037423
[9] In the present case, PW-4 (Surender Kumar) has been the eye-
witness of the accident, on whose statement, FIR was registered, who gave
the graphic version of the accident, inasmuch as he was going on his motor-
cycle, whereas scooty of the deceased was going ahead of him, when the
offending truck came from behind, over took his motor-cycle and then struck
the scooty from behind, due to which both Navneet Sachdeva and Deepakshi
Sachdeva fell on the road and the offending truck crushed them, resulting in
their death. The testimony of PW-4 (Surender Kumar) further establishes
beyond doubt that it was truck No. HR-55E-1354, which had hit the scooty
No. HR-51AK-7729 of the deceased. The mere fact that the truck hit the
scooty from behind while being driven at a fast speed in itself shows the rash
and negligent driving of the truck driver.
[10] The owner of truck, namely Mahavir (PW-2) also deposed that
the petitioner-accused, facing trial, was the driver of the truck on the date of
accident. Besides this, accused himself surrendered in the Court on
17.01.2013, i.e. six days after the accident, joined the investigation and
himself produced the registration certificate, insurance policy of the truck
and his driving licence before the police. In his disclosure statement, he also
disclosed the fact that he was driver of the truck at the time of the accident.
[11] As far as non-examination of Investigating Officer, SI Jaibir
Singh, who conducted the later part of investigation, is concerned, it is not at
all fatal for the prosecution, as all important proceedings of investigation
including various memos were duly proved during the testimony of PW-10
(ASI Pawan Kumar), who remained with the Investigating Officer during
investigation of the case.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037423
[12] Further, as per custody certificate dated 29.11.2023 placed on
record by learned State Counsel, the petitioner has already undergone the
total sentence of two years, including remission of 05 months and 12 days
and stood released from the jail on 15.05.2022 in the FIR (supra).
[13] On 30.11.2023, since no one appeared on behalf of the
petitioner, therefore, notice to him was issued for 22.02.2024. Thereafter, on
22.02.2024, learned State Counsel was requested to get the intimation done
to the petitioner through SHO of the concerned area as the petitioner was not
in touch with his counsel.
[14] Pursuant to the above order dated 22.02.2024, a report dated
01.03.2024 has been received from the concerned SHO of the police station,
recording the statement of the father of petitioner, namely, Nandu Chandila
(resident of Village Rasulpur, District Palwal) that "my son has gone out
and I will inform when he returns".
[15] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I find that the
Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire evidence and found the
petitioner guilty. Consequently, the present revision is dismissed.
[16] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
March 14, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037423
5 of 5
