IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Ranjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. In addition, the petitioner has also imposed a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Counsel for the petitioner has made submission on merits. He contends that it could not be established by the prosecution that the petitioner was driving the truck. The record was summoned and I have gone through the statement given by the complainant before the Court. The complainant was on his scooter and was following his nephew, who along with his mother and sister was driving a scooter ahead of him. The truck allegedly driven by the petitioner, hit against the scooter and thereafter crushed them under the truck. All the three persons died. The complainant who was following has given evidence that the petitioner got down from the Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2011 -2- truck and gave his identification including the address. The complainant has mentioned the same in the FIR as well and has given this evidence before the Court also. This submission that it is highly improbable that the accused person would get down and give his complete address and bolt from the place. If the witness had not known the name and address of the petitioner, he obviously could not have disclosed so in the FIR itself. The submission of the counsel that the owner was not examined to show that the petitioner was driving the vehicle is again a far fetched argument. The prosecution has proved the case by leading the evidence that the petitioner was the driver. If the petitioner intended to show that he was not driving the vehicle as he was not employed on the truck, he was required to prove so. The fact was in his special knowledge. He could have examined the owner. The burden of prove this fact that he was not employed, was not on prosecution. This special plea raised by the petitioner ought to have been established by him. Counsel then contends that the petitioner had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years. The petitioner has already undergone one year and 25 days of imprisonment by now. This is a case, where three persons have died. In my view, the sentence imposed is just and reasonable. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE