IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 19, 2011 Karaj Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Naveen Tandon, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide its judgment dated 7.8.2009 convicted the accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced him accordingly. However, the Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 12.11.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by him with the modification in the sentence which was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC, whereas, sentence awarded against him for the other offence was ordered to be maintained. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 16.11.1999, the complainant Sarabjit Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') along with his mother Gurbachan Kaur was waiting for bus at a main chowk Zira for going to Gurdwara Baba Budha Sahib Ji, then, a truck bearing registration No. PUR 8847, being driven in rash and negligent manner, came towards the side where the passengers including Gurbachan Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur were standing. Gurbachan Kaur, mother of the complainant and other injured were shifted to the Civil Hospital, Zira from where they were referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, where Gurbachan Kaur succumbed to the injuries. Some of the injured were referred to the hospital at Ludhiana. Later on, Jaswinder Kaur also succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a formal FIR was registered and investigated. Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2011 -2- *** On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined HC Ashok Kumar (PW1), Sarabjit Singh complainant (PW2), Gurdeep Singh (PW3), Sukhwinder Singh photographer (PW4), Dr. Inderjit Singh (PW5), Dr. Barjinder Singh Medical Officer (PW6), ASI Gurjant Singh (PW7), Harleen Puri (PW8) and HC Surjit Singh (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which is fatal to the prosecution case. Having pondered over the aforesaid argument, it may be observed that the two ladies died in an accident. Sarabjit Singh complainant (PW2) is the son of Gurbachan Kaur deceased and Gurdeep Singh (PW3) is the husband of Jaswinder Kaur deceased. The first and foremost priority of these witnesses was to take the injured persons to the hospital. It is established on the record that first of all the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital Zira from where they were referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. After the death of Gurbachan Kaur, Sarabjit Singh complainant must have taken some time to compose himself and then could report the matter to the police. As such, in the given circumstances of the case, the delay, if any, in lodging the FIR, stands fully explained and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution version. As regards the identity of the accused, it may be observed that Sarabjit Singh (PW2) and Gurdeep Singh (PW3) while appearing in the witness box have categorically stated that it was the accused and none else who had caused the accident. Both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing could be elicited which may cause dent in the prosecution version. The Apex Court in case Dana Yadav @ Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2011 -3- *** Dahu and others vs. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295, has held that it is well settled that failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible. It has also been held by the Apex Court in case Myladimmal Surendran and Ors. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3281 that failure to hold test identification parade cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused, particularly when witnesses had categorically deposed and identified the assailants in the court after many years. In the instant case, Sarabjit Singh (PW2) and Gurdeep Singh (PW3) have consistently stated that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected in the conduct of trial and the procedure, which may render the judgment as invalid warranting interference by this court, has been pointed out. As such, no ground for interference is made out. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the appellate court has already reduced the sentence as awarded to the accused while exercising its judicial discretion and in the given circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the accused appears to be already on the lower side. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. August 19, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge