Bhagirath @ Bhagi vs State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR No.904 of 2008
Reserved on: 02.09.2026
Pronounced on: 07.09.2026
Uploaded on: 07.09.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

Bhagirath @ Bhagi
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Argued by:- Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, Amicus Curiae
for the petitioner.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.

*
MANDEEP PANNU, J .
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
th
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29 April,
2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby
learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment of conviction dated
th th
14 November, 2007 and order of sentence dated 15 November, 2007,
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani Camp at Bhiwani,
convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279/304-A of the
th
IPC arising out of FIR No.108 dated 15 March, 2001, registered under
Sections 279/304-A of the IPC at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. The
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -2-

petitioner was sentenced as under:-

Under Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in

awarded default of payment

of fine

--
Section 279 IPC -- Rs.1,000/-
Section 304-A IPC R.I. for 06 months Rs.500/- R.I. for 01 month

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Pappi son of Tara
Chand, father of deceased Om Bir, got recorded his statement with the
police to the effect that he was doing labour work. He had four children, i.e
two daughters and two sons. He was working at a brick kiln belonging to
th
Sukhi Ram, near Rama Factory. On 14 March, 2001, at about 4.00/5.00
p.m., he, along with his wife, was taking out bricks from the brick kiln,
while his son Om Bir, aged about two years, was playing nearby. When the
complainant came outside the brick kiln after taking out the bricks, a truck
being driven by Bhagi, caste Rajpoot, resident of village Sirsa Ghoghra,
came to the brick kiln for fetching bricks. The said truck was being driven
at a high speed, rashly and negligently. The complainant gave a hand to the
driver of the truck to slow down the speed; however, the driver did not pay
any heed and, as a result, the truck ran over the complainant’s son, namely,
Om Bir, who suffered injuries on his right leg and chest. The truck driver,
thereafter, fled away from the spot in the truck. The complainant, along
with his wife, made arrangements for conveyance and took Om Bir to Civil
Hospital, Bhiwani. However, due to the serious injuries sustained by him,
Om Bir died on the way. The accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the truck driver.
th
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No.108 dated 15
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -3-

March, 2001, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, was registered. After
completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the Court.
On finding a prima-facie case against the accused, learned Magistrate
charged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A
th
IPC on 5 June, 2002, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Ramesh
Chander, Mechanic, as PW-1; Sukhbir Singh, SI, as PW-2; Umed Singh,
HC, as PW-3; Dr. M.K. Garg as PW-4; Neelam as PW-5; EHC Wazir Singh
as PW-6; Balwan Singh, SI, as PW-7; and Hans Raj as PW-8. Thereafter,
the prosecution evidence was closed by order.
5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded false implication and claimed
innocence. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
Thereafter, learned trial Court heard the learned APP for the State as well as
learned defence counsel and, upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
found the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW-5 Neelam, to be reliable,
trustworthy and inspiring confidence. On the basis of the said solitary
testimony, learned trial Court returned a finding of guilt against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, an appeal was filed before learned Additional Sessions
th
Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani. Vide judgment dated 29 April, 2008,
learned appellate Court held that the deposition of PW-5 Neelam was
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -4-

reliable and trustworthy and was sufficient to sustain the judgment of
conviction against the petitioner/accused. Learned appellate Court further
held that learned trial Court had not committed any illegality in convicting
the petitioner. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court was upheld
and affirmed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by
learned appellate Court dismissing the appeal, the present revision petition
has been filed by the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner was represented by a
counsel; however, thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and,
accordingly, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, Advocate, was appointed as
th
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter vide order dated 13
August, 2026.
8. Learned Amicus Curiae, during the course of arguments,
contended that learned appellate Court has committed a grave illegality in
dismissing the appeal. It was argued that the prosecution story is highly
misconceived and does not inspire confidence on material aspects of the
case. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the material fact that the
complainant, who was the father of the deceased and was, admittedly,
present at the spot, was not examined by the prosecution and no
explanation whatsoever has been furnished for withholding his testimony.
PW-5 Neelam, the mother of the deceased, is stated to be the sole
eyewitness examined by the prosecution. Her presence at the spot and her
claim of being an eyewitness were highly doubtful. Learned Amicus Curiae
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -5-

submitted that, no doubt, a conviction can be based upon the testimony of a
solitary eyewitness if such testimony is found to be wholly reliable and
inspires confidence; however, in the facts of the present case, where the
complainant, who was himself present at the spot and was a material
eyewitness, has not been examined without any explanation, an adverse
inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution and the
testimony of PW-5 ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution.
9. Secondly, it was argued that the road leading to the brick kiln
was narrow and, in such circumstances, it was not possible for the truck to
have been driven at a high speed. This circumstance itself creates a doubt
regarding the prosecution allegation that the petitioner was driving the
truck at a high speed, rashly or negligently. It was, therefore, submitted that
the essential ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC were not
established against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
10. Thirdly, learned Amicus Curiae argued that, even if the
prosecution case is taken at its face value, the deceased child, who was
only about two years of age, was allegedly playing near the road and had
been left unattended. Thus, the parents themselves failed to exercise due
care and caution in leaving such a small child unattended near the path
where vehicles were being brought to and from the brick kiln. Such
negligence on the part of the parents was also a contributing factor to the
unfortunate occurrence, and the petitioner, being the driver of the truck,
could not, in the circumstances, be held solely responsible for the
unfortunate accident.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -6-

11. Lastly, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that, in the
alternative, even if the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the
substantive sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone, keeping in view the mitigating circumstances. It was submitted
that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the occurrence pertains
to the year 2001. The petitioner has faced the ordeal of criminal
proceedings for a protracted period of about 25 years, the present revision
having arisen from the appeal filed in the year 2008. It was further
submitted that the petitioner has already undergone 18 days of
incarceration. Learned Amicus Curiae, therefore, prayed that, considering
the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, the period
already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the complainant, who
was the father of the deceased and a material witness, was not examined by
the prosecution, the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner be
reduced to the period already undergone.
12. Learned Amicus Curiae further relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan versus
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654 , wherein, while maintaining the
conviction of the appellant, the substantive sentence was reduced to the
period already undergone, keeping in view the long passage of time since
the occurrence, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating
circumstances. It was submitted that the aforesaid principles would equally
apply to the case of the petitioner, particularly when the occurrence in the
present case is of the year 2001, the petitioner has faced the criminal
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -7-

proceedings for about 25 years, has already undergone 18 days of
incarceration and has no criminal antecedents. Learned Amicus Curiae,
therefore, prayed that the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner
be reduced to the period already undergone.
13. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the revision
petition and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the
judgments passed by both the Courts below. It was argued that there are
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, based upon a
proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Both the Courts have placed
reliance upon the testimony of PW-5 Neelam, who is none else but the
mother of the deceased and was, admittedly, present at the place of
occurrence. Her presence is also corroborated from the FIR itself, wherein
the complainant had stated that his wife was accompanying him at the time
of occurrence. She was working along with her husband at the brick kiln
and, therefore, her presence at the spot was natural and cannot be doubted.
14. Learned State counsel further submitted that merely because
the complainant, who happened to be the father of the deceased, was not
examined, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded. There is no
inflexible rule of law that the prosecution is required to examine every
person who was present at the spot or that non-examination of one
eyewitness necessarily renders the testimony of another eyewitness
unreliable. Where the testimony of the eyewitness examined by the
prosecution is found to be natural, consistent and trustworthy and inspires
confidence, a conviction can safely be based upon such testimony. In the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -8-

present case, PW-5 was an eyewitness to the occurrence and her testimony
has been found reliable by both the Courts below. There was, therefore, no
occasion to draw any adverse inference merely on account of the non-
examination of the complainant.
15. It was further argued that PW-5 was subjected to lengthy
cross-examination by learned defence counsel, but nothing material could
be elicited from her so as to discredit her testimony. No material
discrepancy or infirmity has been pointed out in her deposition. She
remained firm on the material particulars of the occurrence. The principal
suggestion put to her was that the deceased child had died as a result of
bricks falling upon him, which suggestion was denied by her. The said
suggestion, by itself, does not demolish her testimony regarding the manner
in which the accident had occurred.
16. With regard to the plea that the passage leading to the brick
kiln was narrow and, therefore, the truck could not have been driven at a
high speed, learned State counsel submitted that mere absence of high
speed is not determinative of the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A
IPC. What is required to be seen is whether the vehicle was being driven in
a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life. Even on a narrow
passage, a driver of a heavy vehicle is expected to exercise greater care and
caution. In the present case, the truck ran over a child of about two years of
age, which clearly demonstrates the failure on the part of the petitioner to
exercise the requisite care and caution. Thus, the act of the petitioner was
clearly rash and negligent and resulted in the unfortunate death of the child.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -9-

17. On the question of sentence, learned State counsel submitted
that the petitioner has undergone only 18 days of incarceration, which is
wholly inadequate having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, in
which a child of about two years of age lost his life. It was further
submitted that the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner under
Section 304-A IPC is only six months, and the same cannot be said to be
excessive so as to warrant any further reduction. The prayer for reducing
the sentence to the period already undergone, therefore, deserves to be
declined.
18. I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully
gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and the evidence
on record.
19. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that
the conviction could not have been recorded on the solitary testimony of
PW-5 Neelam, particularly when the complainant, who was the father of
the deceased, was not examined. The contention, however, cannot be
accepted. PW-5 was herself an eyewitness to the occurrence and was
naturally present at the brick kiln, where she was working along with her
husband. Her presence is not only natural but also finds corroboration from
the statement of the complainant recorded in the FIR, wherein he
specifically stated that his wife was accompanying him at the relevant time.
Her testimony has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but no
material contradiction, discrepancy or infirmity has emerged which could
render her testimony unreliable. The mere fact that another eyewitness,
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -10-

namely the complainant, was not examined cannot, in the facts of the
present case, render the otherwise trustworthy testimony of PW-5
unacceptable. Reliance has been placed upon Anoop Singh vs. The State of
Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2016 decided on 13.08.2025
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that conviction can be based
solely on the evidence of a solitary eye witness, provided such witness is
wholly reliable. However, in cases where the evidence is neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court must insist on corroboration in
material particulars. Thus, there is no requirement in law that the
prosecution must examine every eyewitness to the occurrence. What is
material is the quality and reliability of the evidence which has actually
been brought on record. The said contention of the petitioner is,
accordingly, rejected.
20. As regards the manner of driving, the contention that the road
leading to the brick kiln was narrow and, therefore, the truck could not
have been driven at a high speed, also does not advance the case of the
petitioner. Rashness or negligence cannot be determined merely by the
speed of the vehicle. The nature of the place, the surrounding
circumstances and the manner in which the vehicle was driven are also
relevant. In the present case, the petitioner was driving a truck in the
vicinity of a brick kiln where labourers and their family members,
including small children, were present. In such circumstances, a heavy
vehicle was required to be driven with utmost care and caution. The fact
that the truck ran over a child of about two years of age, who was playing
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -11-

nearby, coupled with the trustworthy testimony of PW-5 regarding the
manner of driving, establishes the rash and negligent act of the petitioner.
The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on this aspect
do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
21. Coming to the question of sentence, the prayer for reducing
the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, i.e 18 days, also
cannot be accepted. The petitioner has been convicted for causing the death
of a child of about two years by driving a heavy vehicle rashly and
negligently. The sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment awarded
under Section 304-A IPC cannot be said to be disproportionate to the
offence. The mere passage of time, though a relevant consideration in an
appropriate case, by itself cannot justify reducing the sentence to a period
as short as 18 days, particularly when the offence has resulted in the death
of a young child.
22. The judgment relied upon by learned Amicus Curiae in Israfil
@ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan (supra) does not assist the petitioner on the
facts of the present case. In the said case, while maintaining the conviction,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period
already undergone having regard to the particular mitigating circumstances
noticed therein, including the period of incarceration already undergone
and other circumstances relevant to sentencing. The said judgment does not
lay down that long passage of time, by itself, invariably requires the
substantive sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone. In the
present case, the petitioner has undergone only 18 days of incarceration and
NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRR No.904 of 2008 -12-

the offence resulted in the death of a two years old child. The
circumstances of the present case, therefore, do not warrant such reduction.
23. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections
279 and 304-A IPC and the sentence awarded by learned trial Court and
affirmed by learned appellate Court call for no interference.
24. The present revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
25. Before parting with the judgment, this Court places on record
its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Gurpreet Kaur
Bhatti, learned Amicus Curiae, who has ably assisted the Court in
adjudication of the present revision petition.
26. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)

07.09.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

NEETU RANI
2026.09.07 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD