The High Court dismissed the revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC causing death by rash and negligent driving, finding the evidence cogent despite the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.
The revision petition was dismissed as being without any merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.Revn. NO.458 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revn. NO.458 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: March 04, 2010
Rajjal
...PETITIONER
VS.
State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
PRESENT: None for the petitioner.
Ms.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Petitioner Rajjal was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 279 of the Code. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 304-A of the Code. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition.
In this case, petitioner Rajjal, who was driving offending
Crl.Revn. NO.458 of 2003 2
Tanker bearing No.HR-46-2190 came from Pataudi side at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the cycle of Madan. Due to the said accident, Madan fell down at the spot and expired. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by Jorpal-complainant (P.W.2).
After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused in the Court.
The accused was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Mahipal PW1, Complainant-Jorpal PW2, Gajanand PW3, Ram Singh Head Constable Pw4, Sajan PW5 and Dr.Pardeep Bindal PW6.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner Rajjal denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing inspite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court.
I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case with her assistance.
The prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, Complainant Jorpal (P.W.2) has entirely supported the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had been
Crl.Revn. NO.458 of 2003 3
falsely implicated in this case. It has been pointed out that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and it makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of complainant-Jorpal (P.W.2). In a case like the present one, the Investigating Officer is not a material witness. As such, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer will not affect the merits of the prosecution case nor it will cause any prejudice to the petitioner as there is sufficient evidence connecting the accused with the offence. In this case, the counsel for the accused did not cross-examine PW-2 Jorpal on the point of rashness and negligence and, as such, the statement of complainant remained as unchallenged on this point. Identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time stand duly proved by the evidence furnished by the prosecution.
In view of the above, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code. The sentence awarded to the petitioner also commensurates with the offence committed by him. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit.
( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE
March 04, 2010 jt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court can interfere in a conviction and sentence under sections 279 and 304-A IPC where the petitioner failed to appear and there is sufficient unchallenged evidence.
Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer makes the prosecution case doubtful in a case of vehicular accident.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajjal
State of Haryana
Mohinder Pal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
