IN THE

242

Whether only

judgment is

judgment is pronounced.

DEVENDER KUMAR

STATE OF HARYANA

CORAM : HON'BLE

Present :- Mr.

for

Mr.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,

The

the judgment of

10.01.2020 passed

case bearing No.307

13.08.2015, under

1860, registered

been convicted and

Offence under Section

279 IPC

304A IPC

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR- 2565

Reserved

Date of decision:

Uploaded

only operative part of the

pronounced or the full

pronounced.

Full

KUMAR

VERSUS

HARYANA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD

Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate,

the petitioner.

Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG,

BHARDWAJ, J.

The present criminal revision petition

of conviction dated 08.01.2020 and

passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

No.307 of 2015, arising out of

under Sections 279, 337 and 304A

at Police Station Khol, whereby

and sentenced as under:-

Section Sentence

SI for 6 months.

SI for 2 years with fine

of payment of fine to

PUNJAB & HARYANA

CHANDIGARH

2565-2025 (O&M)

on: 11.05.2026.

decision: 29.05.2026.

Uploaded on: 29.05.2026.

judgment

...Petitioner(s)

...Respondent(s)

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Advocate,

Haryana.

petition has been preferred against

and order of sentence dated

First Class, Rewari, incriminal

of FIR bearing No.196 dated

304Aof the Indian Penal Code,

the revisionist-petitioner had

fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default

to undergo SI for 1 month.

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -2-

2. A further challenge is also made to the judgment dated

22.09.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, in

criminal appeal bearing CRA-16/2020 vide which the appeal filed by the

petitioner has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.08.2015, a

telephonic information was received from Police Post, General Hospital,

Rewari regarding the death of one Malkhan Singh after he had sustained

injuries in a road accident. Upon receipt of the said information, EHC

Bhagwan Singh reached the Government Hospital, Rewari, where statement

of complainant Naresh Kumar was recorded. The complainant stated that he

is a resident of Village Paira and that on the morning of 13.08.2015, he had

gone to meet his uncle Malkhan Singh, who used to reside in his fields

situated on Narnaul Road. It was further stated that the complainant along

with his uncle Malkhan Singh intended to go to Village Hudia Khurd

Gujjarkhai. According to the complainant, Malkhan Singh started from his

residence situated in the fields on Narnaul Road towards Village Hudia

Khurd on his motorcycle along with his wife Manju Devi, who was

travelling as a pillion rider. The complainant further stated that he himself

was following them on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-36V-

1154.It was alleged that when Malkhan Singh reached near the Hudia turn

ahead of Sitara Hotel, a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-32GB-

0144, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of

Kund Barrier and collided head-on with the motorcycle being driven by

Malkhan Singh. As per the complainant, due to the impact of the collision,

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -3-

Malkhan Singh and his wife Manju Devi fell on the road and sustained

multiple injuries. It was further alleged that immediately after the accident,

the driver of the offending pickup vehicle fled away from the spot along

with the vehicle. The complainant, however, asserted that he could identify

the driver of the offending vehicle. The complainant further stated that both

the injured persons were initially shifted to Arvind Hospital, from where

they were referred to Government Hospital, Rewari for further treatment,

however, upon reaching Government Hospital, Rewari, Malkhan Singh was

declared brought dead by the attending doctors. On the basis of the aforesaid

statement, the present FIR was registered.

4. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested,

statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the

site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. During the course of

investigation, the offending pickup vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-

32GB-0144 was taken into police possession. Thereafter, notice under

Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was issued to the registered owner of

the aforesaid vehicle. Upon completion of investigation, the final

report/challan was presented before the competent Court.

5. On presentation of the challan, copies thereof were supplied to

the petitioner free of costs as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. On perusal of the material collected during investigation, a

prima-facie case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

279, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner

to which petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -4-

7. In a bid to prove its case against the petitioner, the prosecution

examined the following witnesses:

PW1 : Beer Singh

PW2 : Naresh Kumar

PW3 : Shyam Kishore

PW4 : Jogender

PW5 : Sandeep Yadav

PW6 : Inspector Pawan Kumar

PW7 : EHC Bhagwan Singh

PW8 : HC Rajesh

8. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313

Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing

against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner

denied the allegations levelled against him, pleaded innocence and asserted

that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner in

defence evidence, merely tendered into evidence a copy of a order dated

13.08.2015 passed in case titled as State v. Devender arising out of FIR No.

381 dated 08.06.2014 registered at PS Nuh exhibited as Ex.DW1 and

thereafter closed his defence evidence.

9. The parties were heard by the trial Court and after considering

the evidence adduced and the rival submissions advanced, the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and

sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of the

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -5-

learned Additional District &Sessions Judge, Rewari. However, vide

judgment dated 22.09.2025, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present

revision petition.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that the judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2020 and the order of sentence

dated 10.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Rewari, as well as the judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari dismissing the appeal preferred by the

petitioner, are wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserve to be set

aside. It is argued that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the

evidence available on record and have accorded undue weightage to the

prosecution version while completely discarding and ignoring the material

and circumstances brought forth by the defence.

12. Learned counsel further contends that even a bare reading of the

prosecution evidence does not satisfy the essential ingredients necessary for

constituting offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and that

the prosecution has failed to establish rashness or negligence attributable to

the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

13. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner does not

find mention in the FIR and that he was subsequently implicated during the

course of investigation. Learned counsel argues that no Test Identification

Parade was ever conducted by the investigating agency and that the

petitioner was identified for the first time during trial before the Court,

which substantially weakens the evidentiary value of such identification.

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -6-

14. Learned counsel additionally contends that there is no cogent or

reliable evidence on record to establish that the petitioner was driving the

offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner or that the accident in

question occurred due to any negligence attributable to him.

15. It is further argued that there are numerous contradictions,

inconsistencies and material improvements in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses, which render the prosecution case doubtful. Learned

counsel also submits that no independent eye-witness was associated by the

prosecution to substantiate its version despite availability of such witnesses.

16. Learned counsel further contends that both the Courts gravely

erred in declining the benefit of probation to the petitioner. It is submitted

that the petitioner is a senior citizen, belongs to a poor family and is the sole

breadwinner for his dependents. It is further argued that the petitioner has

already suffered immense mental, emotional and physical agony on account

of the prolonged criminal proceedings which have remained pending for

approximately ten years.

17. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposes

the present petition and contends that the judgments passed by both the

Courts are based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary

evidence available on record and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity

or misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court in revisional

jurisdiction. It is argued that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court

have concurrently returned findings of guilt after detailed examination of the

prosecution evidence and the same cannot be lightly disturbed merely

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -7-

because the petitioner seeks a re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at an

alternate view.

18. Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution has

successfully established all the essential ingredients constituting offences

punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. It is contended that the

evidence adduced on record clearly establishes that the offending vehicle

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident in

question occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the petitioner,

resulting in the death of Malkhan Singh.

19. It is further argued that mere non-mention of the petitioner’s

name in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when his

identity and involvement subsequently surfaced during the course of

investigation. Learned State counsel contends that the complainant had

specifically stated in his statement that he was capable of identifying the

driver of the offending vehicle and the identity of the petitioner stood duly

established during trial.

20. Learned State counsel additionally submits that absence of a

Test Identification Parade does not ipso facto demolish the prosecution case,

especially when the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the

accused at the time of occurrence and the identity of the petitioner otherwise

stands established from the evidence brought on record.

21. It is further contended that the alleged contradictions and

discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner are minor and natural in nature

and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Learned State counsel

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -8-

argues that minor inconsistencies are bound to occur in statements of truthful

witnesses due to lapse of time and variations in perception and memory and,

rather than discrediting the prosecution case, lend assurance to the

genuineness of the testimonies.

22. Learned State counsel further submits that merely because no

independent witness was examined would not by itself render the

prosecution case doubtful when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

has otherwise remained cogent, trustworthy and reliable. It is argued that

conviction can very well be based upon the testimony of official or

interested witnesses if the same inspires confidence.

23. Opposing the prayer for grant of probation, learned State

counsel contends that the offence in question resulted in the loss of a human

life due to rash and negligent driving and, therefore, the petitioner does not

deserve the discretionary relief of probation merely on account of age or

economic condition. It is argued that offences involving road fatalities are

required to be dealt with seriously so as to send a deterrent message to

society and to ensure adherence to road safety norms.

24. It is further contended that both the Courts have already

considered the mitigating circumstances sought to be projected by the

petitioner and thereafter passed well-reasoned judgments. Learned State

counsel submits that no exceptional circumstance has been pointed out

warranting interference with the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. It is

contended that apart from the present case, the petitioner has six other

pending cases of rash and negligent driving of which two are for offences

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -9-

under Section 304A of IPC and he is also convicted in one more case of 304-

A of IPC. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that the present petition,

being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

25. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and have gone

through the record of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

26. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is deemed apposite to

refer to the judgment rendered by the appellate court and the same is

extracted as under:

“15. Now, in order to ascertain the authenticity of the

prosecution case, this Court has re-appreciated the evidence

present on the paper book, in backdrop of rival contentions of

learned counsel for the parties and following point of

determination arises before this Court:

“Whether the appellant-convict has committed the alleged

accident by driving his pick-up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-

0144 in rash and negligent manner and thereby hit the

motorcycle and caused death of Malkhan Singh on 13.08.2015

and has been rightly convicted for commission of the offences

under Section 279 and 304A IPC by the learned Trial Court?”.

To unfold the real facts of the present case with regard to

adjudication of above formulated point of determination, let us

have a glance of prosecution evidence, where it has examined

as many as eight witnesses to substantiate its case against the

present convict. In the first set of witnesses, the case of

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -10-

prosecution is duly supported by PW2 Complainant Naresh

Kumar, who has reiterated the facts mentioned in his statement

given to the police Ex.PW2/A, disclosing the mode and manner

of fateful accident took place on 13.08.2015. This witness has

categorically deposed that on that day he was following

Malkhan Singh (since deceased) and Manju Devi, who were

going ahead on their motorcycle to village Hudiya Khurd to

mourn death of some known person. He further deposed that he

was also riding on his motorcycle bearing No. HR36-V-1154

and when they reached near Sitara Hotel, then the aforesaid

pick-up vehicle of white colour came from Kund Barrier side,

which was being driven by its driver at very high speed and in

unbalanced manner and directly hit the motorcycle of his uncle

Malkhan Singh. This witness categorically deposed that due to

the injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident, his uncle

Malkhan Singh succumbed to the injuries and his aunt Manju

Devi was also got injured. This witness has identified the

convict Devender present before the learned Trial Court as

driver of the offending pick up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-

0144 at the time of accident and who ran away from the spot in

his presence, while leaving his vehicle. Needless to say, that this

witness has not only supported the prosecution case in credible

manner, rather duly sketched out the rashness and negligence

on the part of convict Devender, while driving the offending

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -11-

pick up vehicle RJ-32GB-0144 at the time of accident.

16. At this stage, while considering the contention of learned

Defence Counsel regarding some discrepancies in the testimony

of PW2 Naresh Kumar during cross-examination, this Court

observes that the pointed part of depositions of aforesaid

witness are not sufficient to discard the primary version of

prosecution case. As per learned Defence Counsel, the

testimony of this witness is not reliable as he is relative of

deceased Malkhan Singh and he has admitted in his cross-

examination that staff and other persons of Sitara Hotel were

present, but none of them was examined as prosecution witness.

Learned Defence Counsel has also contended that PW2 Naresh

Kumar has also admitted that he could not talk with the convict

on the spot who ran away from the spot. But these alleged

minor discrepancies are not sufficient to dent the credibility of

PW2 Naresh Kumar, where the defence has failed to explicit the

manner where his relation with the deceased Malkhan Singh

has effected his testimony qua the role of convict in the alleged

accident. On the contrary, he is natural witness of the incident

as all of them were going to mourn death of someone of their

relative at village Hudiya Khurd and as per prevailing customs,

the family members used to go together to attend such events. In

the same manner, the version of PW2 Naresh Kumar also

sounds credible where he states that the convict did not talk

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -12-

with him on the spot and ran away, which is the much natural

course for driver of an offending vehicle met with major

accident, to ran away from the spot immediately. Had the

convict was not on mistake in the aforesaid accident, he would

have remained present on the spot and tried to help the injured

persons. Thus, the conduct of convict itself speaks about his

involvement and negligence in the aforesaid accident.

17. At this stage, this Court is also guided by the dicta of

Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Sucha Singh and Another Vs.

State of Punjab 2004(1) CCC SC 1, wherein it was observed

that “Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of the

witness- a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make

allegations against an innocent person-foundation has to be

lead if plea of false implication is made and Court has to adopt

a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it

is cogent and credible”.

18. Furthermore, the case of prosecution is also supported by

testimony of PW3 Shyam Kishore, Motor Mechanic, who has

proved the mechanical inspection report of the offending pick

up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-0144 Ex.PW3/A, which depicts

that it was found that the left side bumper, left front mudguard,

left head light and left side bonnet have been damaged and

bent. Thus, when the aforesaid mechanical inspection report is

seen with the site plan Ex.PW8/D of the spot of incident, it

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -13-

clearly shows that the motorcycle of deceased Malkhan Singh

was going in correct side of the road i.e. left side and the

offending pick up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-0144 had hit

the same from the back side. Had the motorcycle of deceased

Malkhan Singh was not plying on correct side of the road, the

offending pick up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-0144 could not

hit that motorcycle from behind without damaging its left side

bumper, mudguard and other connected parts as detailed in

mechanical inspection report Ex.PW3/A. Thus, the rash and

negligent driving on the part of convict Devender Kumar being

driver of the offending pick up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-

0144 at the time of alleged accident dated 13.08.2015 is duly

proved.

19. Furthermore, the prosecution has also proved the

investigation proceedings by examining investigating officer of

this case PW8 HC Rajesh, who has detailed the formal

investigation proceedings, beside proving the documents

prepared and collected during investigation. This witness has

proved the proceedings Ex.PW8/A, inquest proceedings

Ex.PW8/B, Post-Mortem report application Ex.PW8/C, site

plan Ex.PW8/D, FIR Ex.PW8/F and endorsement Ex.PW8/G.

Further PW7 EHC Bhagwan Singh has also identified his

signatures over the possession memo of the offending pick up

vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-0144 Ex.PW7/A, disclosure

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -14-

statement of accused Devender Ex.PW7/B, being witness. Both

the aforesaid witnesses have withstood with the marathon

cross-examination conducted by learned Defence Counsel

before the learned Trial Court and apart from some formal

suggestions, no material discrepancy could be fetched out from

their respective testimonies. At this stage, this Court is not

inclined to accept the contention of learned Defence Counsel,

where he has contended that no independent witness was joined

in investigation by the investigating officer despite availability.

Here, in view of the present scenario of our society these days,

the counter arguments of prosecution sounds more logical that

the passersby or the persons gathered on the spot are mostly

just spectators and they usually least interested to become

witness in the investigation proceedings, therefore, non-joining

of independent witness by the investigating officer is not fatal to

the prosecution case, where it is otherwise duly proved by the

testimonies of eye-witnesses and other corroborative evidence.

It is apt to note here that no doubt can be raised upon the law

laid down by Hon’ble Courts in the cases cited by learned

Defence Counsel but the same are not applicable here due to

distinguishable facts. Law is well settled that a little difference

in facts, may lead to an entirely different conclusion. Moreover,

the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of

U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and Others 2010(3) SLJ SC 1814, are

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -15-

relevant here, where it was observed that “minor discrepancies

on trivial matter snot touching the core of the case, hyper

technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here

and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some

technical error committed by the investigating officer not going

to the roots of the matter, could not ordinarily permit rejection

of the evidence as a whole”.

20. Now, coming to the next point regarding cause of death of

deceased Malkhan Singh i.e. injured in the alleged accident

dated13.08.2015 committed by the convict being the offending

pick up vehicle bearing No. RJ-32GB-0144. To substantiate this

aspect, the prosecution has examined PW4 Dr. Jogender

Tanwer, who has proved the post-mortem report of deceased

Malkhan Singh Ex.PW4/A, by identifying his signatures over the

same. Further, the post-mortem report Ex.PW4/A goes to show

that deceased Malkhan Singh was injured in RSA (road side

accident) on 13.08.2015 as per the police information. Further,

the cause of death of deceased Malkhan Singh is noted as “in

my opinion cause of death in this case is due to multiple injuries

which are ante-mortem in nature, leading to hemorrhagic shock

i.e. sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature of

life.” Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that

deceased Malkhan Singh was expired due to the injuries

sustained by him in the accident dated 13.08.2015,committed by

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -16-

the convict Devender by driving the offending pick up vehicle

bearing No. RJ-32GB-0144 in rash and negligent manner.

21. Lastly, the contention of learned Defence Counsel regarding

plea of alibi of convict Devender at the time of alleged accident

dated 13.08.2015 on the basis of order of learned JMIC, Mewat

dated 13.08.2015 in case titled State Vs. Devender Sharma, is

also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the

impugned order dated13.08.2015 does not bear the time, when

the convict Devender had attended the aforesaid Court, which

could be any time during Court hours from 10:00 AM to 04:00

PM. Moreover, the defence has not even bothered to examine

any person such as his learned counsel etc. in the aforesaid

case at Mewat, before the learned Trial Court in support of his

plea. Therefore, in view of this Court, learned Trial Court has

rightly discarded the plea of alibi taken by the convict as not

sustainable. Thus, the case of the prosecution stands established

beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and there is nothing

on record to show that the Learned Trial Court has erred in its

findings having come to the conclusion about commission of the

offence by the convict under Section 279 and 304A IPC.

22. Before parting with the present matter, this court also not

inclined to extend the relief of probation to the convict as he is

repeated offender, facing other case of same nature as reflected

by his own document Ex. D1, in case titled State Vs Devender

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -17-

FIR no. 381 dated 08.06.2014 U/s 279, 304A IPC, PS. Nuh. On

this point, this court is guided by dicta of Hon’ble Apex Court in

case titled “Dalbir Singh vs State Of Haryana AIR 2000 SC

1677, 2000” wherein it was held that “Bearing in mind the

galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating

consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal

courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A

IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the

P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be

imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent

driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should

be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of

the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must

constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single

moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal

of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a

chance think that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any

accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily

result in the death of any human being; or even if such death

ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that

even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the

court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if

he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human

being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -18-

from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play,

particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high

rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.

Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments

addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express

our inability to lean to the benevolent provision to Section 4 of

the P.O. Act.”

23. With such opinion, the above formulated point of

determination stands decided against the appellant-convict.”

27. It is evident from a perusal of the judgment passed by the

Appellate Court that the entire evidence available on record was appreciated

in detail while examining the correctness of the findings recorded by the

Trial Court. It was noticed that the prosecution had examined as many as

eight witnesses in support of its case and that the testimony of PW-2

complainant Naresh Kumar fully supported the prosecution version. The

said witness deposed that he was following deceased Malkhan Singh and

Manju Devi on his motorcycle and had witnessed the offending pickup

vehicle being driven at a very high speed and in an unbalanced manner

before it directly collided with the motorcycle of the deceased. The

Appellate Court further noticed that the witness had specifically identified

the petitioner-convict as the driver of the offending vehicle who had fled

away from the spot after the accident.

28. The Appellate Court also considered the objections raised on

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -19-

behalf of the petitioner regarding discrepancies in the testimony of PW-2

and rightly concluded that the same were minor in nature and insufficient to

discredit the core prosecution case. It was specifically noticed that merely

because the witness happened to be related to the deceased would not by

itself render his testimony unreliable, particularly when his presence at the

spot was found natural and probable. The conduct of the petitioner in fleeing

from the spot immediately after the accident was also taken note of as an

incriminating circumstance pointing towards his involvement and

negligence.

29. The Appellate Court further relied upon the mechanical

inspection report Ex.PW3/A proved through PW-3 Shyam Kishore, which

showed damage to the left side bumper, mudguard and connected portions of

the offending pickup vehicle. The said evidence, when read conjointly with

the site plan Ex.PW8/D, clearly established that the motorcycle of the

deceased was being driven on the correct side of the road and that the

offending pickup vehicle had struck it from behind, thereby substantiating

the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.

30. The investigation proceedings and documentary evidence

produced on record were also found proved through testimonies of PW-7

and PW-8, who withstood cross-examination without any material

contradiction being elicited. The Appellate Court further observed that non-

joining of independent witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution case in the

facts and circumstances of the present matter, particularly when the

prosecution version otherwise stood corroborated by trustworthy ocular as

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -20-

well as documentary evidence.

31. The medical evidence was also found to be fully supportive of

the prosecution case. The Appellate Court noticed that PW-4 Dr. Jogender

Tanwer had duly proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW4/A, wherein the

cause of death was opined to be hemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple

ante-mortem injuries sustained in the road accident. Thus, a direct nexus

between the accident caused by the offending vehicle and the death of

Malkhan Singh stood conclusively established.

32. The plea of alibi raised by the petitioner was also examined and

rightly rejected by the Appellate Court after noticing that the document

relied upon by the petitioner did not even disclose the time of his appearance

before the Court at Mewat and no independent witness was examined by the

defence to substantiate the said plea.

33. The learned Appellate Court further rightly declined the benefit

of probation after noticing that the petitioner was also facing another

criminal case of similar nature under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Reliance

was appropriately placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Dalbir Singh vs State of Haryana emphasizing the necessity of deterrence

in cases involving death caused by rash and negligent driving.

34. It is noticeable that the petitioner has 06 other pending cases for

rash and negligent driving. Of the above, two cases are for the offences

under Section 304A of IPC and he also has another conviction for the

offence under Section 304A. It thus remains undisputed that the petitioner is

a habitual offender and has repeated involvement in similar nature of

242 CRR-2565-2025 (O&M) -21-

offence. The petitioner has thus not reformed himself and has continued to

endanger lives of people.

35. In view of the detailed and cogent appreciation of evidence

undertaken by both the Courts, this Court finds no perversity, illegality,

misreading or non-appreciation of evidence warranting interference in

revisional jurisdiction. The prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of

the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the findings concurrently

recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are based upon

proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Consequently, finding

no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

36. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

37. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed

of accordingly.

38. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the licensing authority

for taking appropriate action against the petitioner, under the Motor Vehicles

Act,1988 given his involvement in such large number of repeated offences.

29 May, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

Sumit Gusain JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No