Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mani Ram vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
253 CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.09.2024
MANI RAM ....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Amicus Curiae with
Mr. Y.S. Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Nidhi Garg, AAG, Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2005 and order on quantum
of sentence dated 21.02.2005 passed in Criminal Case bearing No.295/1 of
2004 titled as 'State Vs Mani Ram' arising out of FIR No.390 dated
20.11.1995 registered under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC at Police Station
Butana whereby the petitioner has been held guilty under Section 279 of IPC
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months and was further held guilty under Section 304-A of IPC and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period two years.
Challenge is also made to the judgment dated 17.07.2008 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Criminal Appeal
No.10 of 2008 thereby upholding the judgment and order dated
18.02.2005/21.02.2005 as passed by learned trial Court, Karnal.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
2. For the sake of coherence and continuity, the parties shall be
referred to hereinafter as per their original nomenclature as given during
trial.
3. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that on
20.11.1995, a police party headed by ASI Baljinder Singh was present at
G.T. Road, T. Point Taraori when the complainant Pala Ram reached there
and recorded a statement alleging therein that he was running a dhaba under
the name and style of 'Jamidara' at G.T., Road, Taraori. On the same day at
about 1.15 P.M., he was standing outside his dhaba to manage the parking of
the trucks that were lying parked therein when a Maruti Car bearing
Registration No.DL-2CA-3488 was found coming from the side of Taraori at
a moderate speed. At the same time, one bus of Delhi Transport Corporation
(D.T.C.) bearing Registration No.DL-1P-9357 was seen coming from Karnal
side. It was driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed by its driver who
directly hit his vehicle with the Maruti car due to which the front portion of
the car was totally damaged and the driver of the car immediately died as he
was entangled inside the car. The bus, thereafter, collided with truck bearing
Registration no.DIG-7475 thereby damaging the front portion of that truck
as well. Four females and two males who were occupants of the car had
sustained serious injuries and they were rushed to hospital. The driver and
the conductor of the offending vehicle left the vehicle at the spot and fled
away. While alleging that the accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending bus, he prayed for taking action in the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
matter. As per further allegations, on the basis of his statement, a case under
Sections 279 & 304 - A of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings
were initiated. The vehicles involved in the accident were taken into custody
by the investigating officer after visiting the spot. Three persons had
succumbed to their injuries sustained by them in the accident. Inquest
proceedings and postmortem examination was conducted. The present
petitioner who was found to be the driver of the offending vehicle was
arrested on 21.11.1995. The vehicles involved in the accident were
mechanically examined. After completion of necessary investigation and
usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused,
4. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused free of cost. On
finding a prima facie case for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304 - A of IPC, the accused had been charge-sheeted
accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as
12 witnesses besides placing reliance upon certain documents. Statement of
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he abjured
his guilt. In defence evidence, he examined DW-1 Ram Phal, conductor of
the offending vehicle.
6. On appreciating the evidence produced on record and
considering the contentions raised by both the sides, the learned Magistrate
vide judgment dated 18.02.2005 and order of quantum of sentence dated
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
21.02.2005 held guilty and convicted the petitioner in the manner as
indicated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred appeal against
the aforementioned judgment which too had been dismissed vide judgment
dated 17.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal.
Dissatisfied by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
8. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the
eyes of law and are liable to be set aside as while passing the same, the
learned Courts below did not apply their judicious mind and did not
appreciate the evidence so produced on record in a proper perspective. Non-
speaking and cryptic orders had been passed. There was no cogent,
convincing and reliable evidence on record to prove that the accident had
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and
further that it was the petitioner who was driver of the same. PW-10 to
PW-12 who were material witnesses, had not identified the petitioner as the
driver of the offending vehicle nor they had noted down the registration
number of the said vehicle. Their statements proved that they had not even
witnessed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle or that in fact, it was the said vehicle which was
involved in the accident. Identity of the petitioner as the driver of this
vehicle had not been established. However, this fact had not been
considered. With this broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
judgments are liable to set aside, the revision petition deserves to be
accepted and further that the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the
charges for which he had been guilty and convicted.
9. Per contra, it is argued by learned State counsel that there was
overwhelming, sufficient, cogent and convincing evidence on record to
prove that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle on the
fateful day and by driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and at a
high speed, he had hit the car in which the victims were travelling and then
had hit a truck thereby causing the accidental deaths. Due to his rash and
negligent driving, the deaths of Anju, Pritam Singh and Navjot had taken
place. The findings given by the Courts below are well reasoned and no
ground has been made out to interfere with the same. Hence, it is urged that
the petition is devoid of any merits and that the same does not deserve to be
allowed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State
counsel at considerable length and have gone through the material placed on
record carefully.
11. The allegations against the petitioner are that as on 20.11.1995
he had driven the vehicle bearing Registration No.DL-1P-9357 rashly,
negligently and at a high speed and by doing so, he had hit the same firstly
with a car bearing Registration No.2CA-3488 and then a truck bearing
Registration No.DIG-7475 thereby resulting into damaging both the vehicles
and causing injuries to the victims namely Anju, Navjot Singh and Pritam
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
Singh who had succumbed to their injuries. So far as the fact that the victims
Anju, Navjot and Pritam Singh had died in an accident which took place on
20.11.1995 and PWs Sonia, Poonam and Tejinder had sustained injuries in
that very accident, is concerned, the same is not in dispute. More so, this fact
stands proved from the medical evidence produced on record coupled with
the sworn deposition of PW-10 to PW-12 who were the injured eye
witnesses to the occurrence. The complainant Pala Singh who was an eye
witness to the occurrence did not support the prosecution version. However
PW-10 to PW-12 who were the injured eye witnesses, supported the case of
the prosecution by saying that the accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending bus by the complainant on the fateful day.
All of them identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle.
No-doubt they did not disclose the registration number of this vehicle in
their statements but solely due to this fact, their statements cannot be
discarded. Admittedly and evidently, all three of them had sustained injuries
in the accident and therefore, it was quite natural and probable that they
were not in a position to note down the registration number of the offending
vehicle. The recovery of this vehicle was, however, effected from the place
of occurrence itself on that very day which has not been disputed. As such, it
stands established that it was the offending vehicle that was involved in the
accident.
12. Then so far as the fact that the petitioner was the driver of this
vehicle is concerned, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C,
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
he is shown to have clearly admitted that he was the driver of the offending
vehicle on the fateful day. More so, PW-1 Ramphal who was the conductor
of the offending vehicle also did not say that the petitioner was not driving
the bus in question on the ill fated day. The Test Identification Parade of the
Petitioner had not been conducted but in view of the statement of the
petitioner as recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, testimony of DW-1
Ramphal coupled with the fact that injured eye witnesses i.e. PW-10 to PW-
12 identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle, the fact
that no formal Test Identification Parade of the petitioner had been
conducted, lost any significance. The Courts of learned Judicial Magistrate
as well as the Lower Appellate Court while considering the evidence
produced during trial, had arrived at a well reasoned finding of fact that the
petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and he had driven this
vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and safety of
others and by doing so he had hit the car of the victims thereby causing
death of victims Pritam Singh, Navjot Singh and Anju. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has failed to point out any such legal infirmity or lacunae in
the findings so given which might require any interference by this Court
while exercising revisional jurisdiction. As such, this Court of the considered
opinion that no ground has been made out to interfere with the findings so
recorded by the Courts below. Accordingly, the same are upheld.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. The findings as to guilt of
the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and as affirmed by
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127617
CRR-1349-2008(O&M)
learned Lower Appellate Court are upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The
petitioner is ordered to be taken into custody forthwith in order to undergo
the period of sentence as awarded by the trial Magistrate.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
( MANISHA BATRA )
26.09.2024 JUDGE
Deepak Patwal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
