Crl. Revision No. 3066 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3066 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.12.2011 Kulwinder Singh @ Laddi …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision petition against judgment dated 14.01.2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha, by virtue of which petitioner Kulwinder Singh @ Laddi was convicted under Sections 279,304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 279; and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 304-A IPC as well as against judgment dated 09.09.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by virtue of which appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused was dismissed. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 01.05.2003, Gurpreet Singh along with Sukhjinder Singh was going on his Crl. Revision No. 3066 of 2011 (O&M) 2 scooter from his village towards village Tunga and his brother was also going ahead of them on his scooter bearing registration No.CHB-4841. When they reached in the area of village Galwati near Harigarh Petrol Pump, his brother stopped his scooter on the side of the road for urinating purpose and he also stopped his scooter 15/20 karams behind of his brother. At the same time, a Canter bearing registration No.PB-04G/9929 which was being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the scooter of his brother Avtar Singh and dragged his brother along with his scooter, as a result of which his brother Avtar Singh suffered serious injuries and his brother died at the spot, whereas scooter was damaged. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of above referred Canter. On the basis of this statement a case was registered and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation rough site plan of the place of accident was prepared. The spot was also photographed; statements of the witnesses were recorded; post mortem examination on the dead body of Avtar Singh was got performed; the vehicles involved in the accident were also taken into possession and after completion of the investigation challan was presented against the accused-petitioner. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused- petitioner under Section 279,304-A IPC and the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as seven witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence/statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. After appreciating the evidence available on the record the learned trial court as well as learned lower Appellate Court convicted and sentenced the accused as Crl. Revision No. 3066 of 2011 (O&M) 3 indicated above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the factum of accident on the alleged date, time and place with the scooter in question. He has also not disputed the fact that the Canter involved in the accident in question was being driven by the petitioner-accused and that Avtar Singh (deceased) who was driving the scooter in question suffered fatal injuries in the said accident. The foremost argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. He has vehemently argued that the present petitioner has been implicated in this case being the driver of the heavy vehicle and in fact scooterist Avtar Singh was rash and negligent and was responsible for causing the accident. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are liable to be rejected out rightly. The date, time and place of the accident in question is not being disputed by the petitioner. His only plea is that the scooterist was negligent in causing the accident in question and present is the case of contributory negligence. In the opinion of this Court, the moment case of contributory negligence is taken by the accused his negligence stands proved. He himself has not stepped into the witness box to prove his stand. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has not taken specific stand about the rash and negligent driving on part of the scooterist. He has simply taken the stand that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No enmity has been proved on record to show that the complainant was enimical towards the present petitioner and due to enmity a false case is Crl. Revision No. 3066 of 2011 (O&M) 4 lodged against him. Moreover, as per prosecution story deceased was standing with his scooter for urination. Therefore, story of contributory negligence seems to be after thought. Gurpreet Singh while appearing in the witness box as P.W.3 has categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter by the present petitioner, in which his father (Avtar Singh) suffered fatal injuries. His statement is duly corroborated by Sukhjinder Singh (PW6) another eye-witness. Both these prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version on all material points. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence have convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment passed by both the courts below. As a sequel to my above discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) December 8, 2011 Judge Anand