Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.12.2011 Gurnam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition challenging the judgment/order dated 11.05.2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days under Section 304-A IPC; and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC as well as judgment dated 22.09.2010, passed by Additional Session Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-1, Hoshiarpur, by virtue of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused against his conviction and sentence was dismissed. Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Briefly the facts as enumerated in the prosecution story are that on 04.04.2003 Surjit Singh along with his son Arvind Singh was going in his Maruti car bearing registration No.UP-785-3696, which was being driven by the later (Arvind Singh). At about 11.30 P.M. when they reached near Nasrala Adda one truck trolla bearing registration No.UP-62E-7895, driven by Gurnam Singh came in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into the car from the wrong side, as a result of which Arvind Singh received serious injuries and he died at the spot. The driver of the offending truck left the truck at the spot and ran away. On the statement of the complainant FIR was registered. The vehicles involved in the accident were taken into possession and accused- petitioner Gurnam Singh was arrested on 14.07.2003 and after completion of the investigation challan was presented against the accused. The learned trial court framed the charges under Section 279 and 304-A IPC against the accused petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution to prove its case examined seven witnesses and thereafter closed its evidence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on the record convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC as indicated above. The appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and he has been falsely implicated on the statement of the father of the deceased who is an interested witness and Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2011 (O&M) 3 his statement is not corroborated by any independent witness. He has further argued that in fact the driver of the car was negligent in causing the accident who himself rammed the car into the truck troller, driven by the petitioner, and as such he is liable to be acquitted of the charges. Having gone through the records I find that the present case was registered on the basis of statement of Surjit Singh who while appearing in the witness box as PW1 had categorically deposed that on the fateful day he alongwith his son Arvind Singh was going in a car and when they reached near Nasrala Adda a truck troller bearing registration No.UP-62E-7895 driven by the accused rammed into their car, as a result of which his son Arvind Singh sustained fatal injuries. He had categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner. The lower court as well as Appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of PW1 Surjit Singh. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken stand that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased but he has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The statement of PW1 cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he is the father of the deceased and thus an interested witness. Admittedly, the accident took place at about 11.30 P.M. (in the night). P.W.1 was travelling in the car in question and thus his presence at the spot cannot be disbelieved. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment passed by both the courts Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2011 (O&M) 4 below. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence had convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above and there is nothing to be set right with the impugned judgment which calls for interference by this Court. In nutshell, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) December 14, 2011 Judge Anand