Crl.Rev.No.2829/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2829/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 13.10.2010. Rakesh Kumar ....................Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Surinder Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner-Rakesh Kumar has filed the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC against the judgment dated 27.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed and judgment and order dated 16.9.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 IPC was upheld. Facts leading to the present revision petition are that on 15.11.2008 at about 7.30 pm, complainant Norma was going on foot to get milk. Her son Amit Kumar was going ahead of her on a kacha path on a bycycle. When they reached near Mission Farm, then one Maruti Van bearing registration No.CHO1R 0574 came from behind Crl.Rev.No.2829/2010 2 being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed and struck against her son as a result of which he fell down and suffered multiple injuries including head injury. His right leg was also fractured. After the collision, the driver of the offending vehicle stopped the same and came to complainant and disclosed her his name and address. A number of persons assembled at the spot and the injured Amit was taken to Civil Hospital,Kharar from where he was referred to PGI. On the statement of complainant FIR was lodged, the accused-petitioner was arrested on 17.11.1998 and the offending vehicle was got mechanically tested. After completion of formalities challan was presented and the petitioner was charged for the offences under Section 279,338 IPC, to which accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and RI for 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 338 IPC. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as noticed above. Hence the present revision petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution failed to establish the identity of the driver/petitioner. The site plan prepared at the spot is not properly proved, there are Crl.Rev.No.2829/2010 3 contradictions in the statements of the complainant and in fact the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the injured. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned judgment, I find no ground to interfere in the present revision petition. While dismissing the appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the statement Ex.PB of the complainant was recorded at 10.30 pm, i.e. within three hours of the occurrence. In the said statement the complainant had mentioned the name and address of the accused-petitioner as well as registration number of the offending vehicle. As per statement of the complainant, after the collision the petitioner had stopped the vehicle, came to her and disclosed his name and address. Furthermore, petitioner himself had surrendered on 17.11.1998, as has come in the evidence of HC Harbhajan Singh. Learned appellate court has rightly observed that if the petitioner was not involved in the accident he would not have surrendered himself before the police as accused. As regard the identification of the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has noticed that the complainant had identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle in Court which is a substantive evidence. The contention of the learned counsel that the site plan had not been properly proved or minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence pales into insignificance in view of the other overwhelming Crl.Rev.No.2829/2010 4 evidence available on record. For the reasons stated above,I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 13.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge