IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1081 of 2001 Date of Decision: February 13, 2009 Hardev Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab . ** Sabina, J. Hardev Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide judgment dated 27.7.2000. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala while dismissing the appeal directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 5 and 6 of its judgment are as under:- "5. According to the prosecution case, the complainant was 32 years of age and was resident of village Bakhshiwala. He was a Labourer. On 26.12.1997, at about 4.30 p.m., he had gone to his Crl. Rev. No. 1081 of 2001 -2- fields on the Bhadson road in the revenue limited of village Bakhshiwala adjoining the road. He was cutting the barseem crop and Manjit Singh son of Shangara Singh of his village was also standing near him in the fields. Munir Khan aged 4- 1/2 years son of Iqbal Mohd. Complainant was standing on the berm of the road. In the meantime, truck No. PB-J-11/3979 came from the Patiala side. The driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently and hit the said truck against Munir Khan, who was standing on the berm of the road. As a result of said accident, Munir Khan suffered a hidden injury in his head. The truck driver ran away with the truck. The complainant took his son Munir Khan to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Lateron, the complainant came to know that Hardev Singh (accused/appellant) was driving the said truck at the relevant time and he started compromise talks with the complainant. For this reason, the complainant did not report the matter to the police. However, the compromise talks did not materialize and said Munir Khan died on the night of December 27,1997 in the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. This accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Hardev Singh truck driver. Accordingly, the case was got registered by the complainant against the accused/appellant on 28.12.1997. 6. The case was investigated. The truck was taken into possession. It was got mechanically tested. The dead body of Munir Khan was subjected to post mortem examination. The accused was arrested and admitted to bail. The investigation was Crl. Rev. No. 1081 of 2001 -3- completed and the accused was sent up for trial." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of Iqbal Mohd. @ Moni (PW2) and Manjit Singh (PW3). Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Iqbal Mohd. (PW2) @ Moni is the father of the deceased- Munir Khan. This witness has deposed that on 26.12.1997 at about 4.30 P.M. he was cutting Barseem fodder from the field adjoining Bhadson road in the revenue limits of village Bakshiwala and Manjit Singh was also present with him. His minor son Munir Khan aged about 4½ years was standing on the katcha path adjoining the road near the fields. In the meantime, truck No. PB-11-J-3979 came from Patiala side and struck against his son. As a result of this, Munir Khan suffered head injuries and was removed to Rajindra Hospital Patiala where he succumbed to his injuries. He lodged the FIR on 28.12.1997 as talks regarding the compromise had failed. He also deposed that the truck in question was driven by Hardev Singh present in the Court. Statement of Iqbal Mohd. @ Moni (PW2) with regard to the manner of accident is duly corroborated by Manjit Singh (PW3). Both the witnesses have categorically deposed that they have doted down number of truck at the spot where the accident had taken place. Nirmal Singh (DW1) is the Assistant Manger with the Kohli Transport and he deposed that truck in question was owned by Ajit Pal Singh, who was running the company in the name of new Kohli Transport. Surinderjit Singh (DW2) is another employee of new Kohli Crl. Rev. No. 1081 of 2001 -4- Transport. Nirmal Singh (DW1), in his cross-examination, has deposed that the vehicle in question was driven by Hardev Singh and he was still driving the vehicle in question till date. Surinderjit Singh (DW2) deposed that on 25.12.1997, he had loaded the truck in question. The vehicle returned to Patiala after four days and thereafter it was taken away by the police on 2.1.1998.Surinderjit Singh (DW2), in his cross-examination. has deposed that it was correct that on 26.12.1997, Hardev Singh was driving the truck in question. In these circumstances the statement of PW2 in his cross- examination on that name of the driver was told to him by the police and statement of PW2 in his cross-examination that he had not seen the driver at the time of accident loses its significance and are not fatal to the prosecution case. The said witnesses have duly disclosed the number of the truck which as per defence witnesses was driven by the petitioner. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments of the Courts below whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 279/304 -A IPC call for no interference. However, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304- A IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The sentence qua fine under Section 304-A IPC is maintained. The sentence with regard to Section 279 IPC is maintained. With this modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. ( Sabina ) Judge February 13, 2009 arya