Criminal Revision No.840 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.840 of 1990 Date of decision: February 14, 2008 Jarnail Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Jarnail Singh son of Charan Singh was posted as Driver on Punjab Roadways bus No.PJG-4607. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before me that there is no dispute that in discharging his official duty, petitioner was driving a bus, which was coming from Chandigarh to Tarn Taran. It is also not in dispute that on 31st August, 1987 at 8.45 a.m. accident had taken place at Khamano resulting into death of three persons, Santokh Singh, Randhir Singh and Karam Chand. Before I advert to the facts of the case in detail, Mr.Sidhu appearing for the petitioner have made following three submissions: 1. Mr.Sidhu has stated that from the testimony of solitary witness examined Mit Singh PW-4, (a) ocular version (b) site plan produced and (c) from photographs, it is apparent that Criminal Revision No.840 of 1990 2 bus was going on the right side and rashness and negligence cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 2. It has been stated that Mit Singh, who was a police stooge has not specifically denied factum of his appearing in 50/60 cases. Therefore, reliance can not be placed on his testimony. 3. The courts below have brushed aside the testimony of DW-1 Bhinder Singh, who was a passenger in the bus and therefore have committed a grave error. In the present case, PW-4 Mit Singh has lodged FIR DW-4/A, which was recorded by PW-11 Rupinder Singh SI. It has been stated that in the FIR that near the truck union, PW-4 Mit Singh along with Shiv Ram PW-8, who has not supported the prosecution, were standing when they saw the offending bus coming on a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle, which belonged to the petitioner and caused the death of three persons. It has also been stated in the FIR that the bus dragged the motorcycle upto 40 feet. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 31st August 1987 at 8.45 a.m. FIR was recorded at 9.15 a.m. During course of arguments, I had reminded Mr.Sidhu, counsel for the petitioner that this Court is exercising its revisional jurisdiction and is not an appellate Court and therefore cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-evaluating the evidence. Mr.Sidhu has countered by saying that in this case, there is mis-reading of the facts, therefore, this Court should formulate its own opinion. Mr.Sidhu has brought to my notice a stray line in the cross-examination of Mit Singh, when he stated that the bus was standing on the left side. He has also brought to notice from the testimony of PW-11 Rupinder Singh to state that the bus was standing on the right side. When examined the site plan, Criminal Revision No.840 of 1990 3 it shows the accident had taken place at point ‘G’ and thereafter bus dragged towards point ‘E’. Therefore, the place where the occurrence took place is on the middle of the road. As an impact of accident, motorcycle had gone on the one side when dragged whereas bus is said to have gone, in the site plan, on the other side. A look at the photographs shows that motorcycle is lying in the close vicinity of the offending bus. Before this Court opine anything regarding the place of occurrence, whether these points were dealt with by the courts below or not, is the material thing to be seen. In para 16 of its judgment, the appellate Court below has dealt with this matter and has returned the following finding: “16. ……. However, the rashness and negligence of the appellant in driving the bus is proved from the evidence of Meet Singh PW-4 who has stated that the appellant was driving his bus rashly and negligently and at a high speed without blowing the horn. The plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PA also shows that HC Santokh Singh had brought his motor cycle on his correct hand side of the road. But the appellant had dashed his bus into it. The point of impact of the bus against the motor cycle is shown by the letter G in the plan Ex.PW 11/B if one travels from Chandigarh to Ludhiana side. Therefore, it is clear that the accused was driving his bus on his wrong hand side of the road when he dashed it into the victim motor cycle. This is conclusive of his rash and negligent of the offending driving bus.” The trial Court formulated its opinion and held petitioner responsible for the accident. The finding of the trial Court is given below: “The other formal investigation was also completed by S.I. Rupinder Singh who appeared as PW11 in this case. He also prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW11/8, of the place of accident. A perusal of site plan Ex.PW11/8, has proved that the bus which was coming from the side of Chandigarh towards Samrala caused the accident at point ‘G’. The point ‘G’ is towards right side of bus which is on a wrong side and Criminal Revision No.840 of 1990 4 wherefrom it is established that the bus was coming on wrong side at a fast and negligent speed as proved by Mit Singh.” Arguments that no reliance should be placed on evidence of Mit Singh as he is stooge of the police and he may have appeared in 50/60 cases has not been raised before the appellate Court below. A stray line of the witness, that he cannot recollect, or he is not in position to deny he may have appeared 50/60 times, was not construed by defence counsel in both the courts below of much significance and was not raised as an argument. Rather, both the courts below have placed reliance on the solitary witnesses examined by the prosecution. Mit Singh is a resident of nearby village. Whereas, Bhinder Singh DW-1 has not even identified the driver as a driver of the bus. The courts below having appreciated the evidence had returned their finding. I do not find that there is any misreading in the evidence. Since there is no illegality or perversity brought to my notice in a revisional Court, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. Since three deaths had taken place, no interference in the quantum of sentence is called for. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 14, 2008. rps