CRR No.2396 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2396 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2011 Kuldip Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner-Kuldip Singh has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by filing present revision petition against judgment dated 9.3.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, by virtue of which petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for offence under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for offence under Section 304- A IPC as well as against judgment dated 17.9.2011 passed by learned CRR No.2396 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by virtue of which appeal preferred by the accused/petitioner was dismissed. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 19.11.2000 HC Shamsher Singh along with other police officials was present on patrol duty near petrol pump. At that time Ranjit Singh son of Charan Singh met HC Shamsher Singh and suffered statement that one unidentified person was crossing the road when truck/tipper bearing No.PB-11J-4725 driven by Kuldip Singh came from Chandigarh side and hit the unidentified person, who died at the spot. On the basis of this statement, FIR was registered against present petitioner. Site plan of the place of accident was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and truck was taken into possession. Accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was presented against accused/petitioner. After framing of the charge, learned trial Court examined as many as four witnesses and closed the evidence. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., petitioner denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded his false implication, however, he did not produce any evidence in defence. After appreciating evidence available on the record learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused/petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC, as noticed above. Accused/petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant and CRR No.2396 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the Investigating Officer and dead body was not identified by anyone. Whereabouts, like name and address of the deceased could not be find out. However, both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence. Accused was driving the truck on the left side of the road and was not rash and negligent and as such impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. I have gone through the records and found that prosecution case stands proved and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of complainant Ranjit Singh, who is an eyewitness and independent witness of the accident. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some contradictions in the statements of the Investigating Officer and the eyewitness is of no help to him. Minor contradictions bound to appear. It has been categorically deposed by Ranjit Singh PW4 that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by Kuldip Singh, petitioner. He has identified the petitioner as driver of the offending truck in the Court too while appearing in the witness box. Post-mortem report reveals that the deceased died in a road accident occurred on 19.11.2000. Learned Appellate Court was right in observing that PW1, PW2 and PW4 did not have any enmity with the accused and they have no affection for the unknown deceased, therefore, they have deposed correct version before the Court. Body of deceased was not identified shall be of no help to the accused. After all one unknown human being was killed due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. CRR No.2396 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. As a sequel to my above discussion, I find no error in the impugned judgments. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge December 13, 2011 R.S.