Criminal Revision No.2017 of 2004 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2017 of 2004 Date of Decision: 10.02.2011 Bajinder Singh @ Bajinder Malik ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated September 11th, 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 12th, 2002 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 3 months ` 200/- RI for 15 days 304-A IPC RI for 1 year ` 400/- RI for 30 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts : On June 11th, 2000, at 9.30 AM, Balbir Kaur (PW- 2) and Dalbir Singh (PW-3) along with Pal Singh - father and Pargat Singh - nephew of Balbir Kaur were going to Bus Stand of Village Bija to go to their village Jhamat. When they reached on the divider of the road, a truck bearing registration No. HR-29C-3258 driven by the petitioner came from side of Khanna at a fast speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner. It hit them, ran over Pal Singh and Criminal Revision No.2017 of 2004 2 .. Pargat Singh and dragged both of them upto quite a sufficient distance. After leaving the truck, its driver fled away from the spot. Pal Singh died on the spot. Pargat Singh was evacuated to Sidhu Hospital, Doraha from where he was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana but on the way, he succumbed to his injuries. On the Statement of Dalbir Singh (Exhibit PW3/A), First Information Report (Exhibit PW8/B) was recorded in Police Station Sadar, Khanna against the petitioner. Malkiat Singh - Investigator (PW-5) reached the spot. Scene of occurrence was got photographed. Site plan (Exhibit PW8/G) was got prepared. The truck was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PW5/C). From dash-board of the truck its Registration Certificate and the driving license of the petitioner were taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PW5/D). Dr. Satpal (PW-1) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Pal Singh and found eleven injuries on his person. He opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PW1/C) of Pargat Singh. 3. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for trial. 4. Charge, in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. 6. The accused-appellant were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. He denied his complicity and pleaded innocence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below on the ground that Balbir Kaur (PW- Criminal Revision No.2017 of 2004 3 .. 2), who allegedly witnessed the occurrence, could not identify the driver of the truck and as such, benefit of the same should be given to the petitioner. 8. The evidence of Balbir Kaur (PW-2) and Dalbir Singh (PW-3) has been perused minutely. Both of them have spoken in one voice that they were on foot along with Pal Singh and Pargat Singh. The offending truck came at a fast speed driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner ran over Pal Singh and Pargat Singh. Dalbir Singh also testified that the petitioner was the driver at the time of accident. Both the eye-witnesses were cross- examined by the defence counsel but no flaw could be pointed out in their forthright testimony. Since Balbir Kaur deposed that she could not identy the petitioner, does not mean that the accident was not caused by the petitioner. From her statement, it is not possible to say that the petitioner was not driving the truck. There is clinching evidence to prove that he was on steering wheel of the truck as the Police had taken into possession his driving licence lying in the dash- board of the truck. It proves that the truck was being driven by petitioner and none else. In view of this, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled. 9. Learned counsel has also relied upon Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 758. In that case, driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that prosecution failed to show as to how exactly the accident took place. Here in the case in hand, the eye-witnesses have given the vivid description of the occurrence that the accident took place on account of negligence of the petitioner. 10. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty and rightly convicted and sentenced him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. Criminal Revision No.2017 of 2004 4 .. 11. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.02.2011 som Criminal Revision No.2017 of 2004 5 ..