Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2003(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2003(O&M) Date of decision: 21.9.2010 Nishan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Waraich, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Nishan Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections, 279/ 337/ 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 29.7.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kurukshetra. Vide order dated 30.7.2002, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months with a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.1.2003 passed by the Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2003(O&M) 2 Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “On 18.5.1996 Balwant Singh driver of BBMB brought cement from Panipat to BBMB Store Kurukshetra, in truck NO.HYL 7488. He parked the truck in front of the store and asked Balbir Singh Assistant Store Keeper to ger the cement unloaded Balwant Singh in the meantime sat down on a bench in front of the office where Gurdial Singh complainant Lineman and Nishan Singh accused Assistant Lineman were also sitting under a tree. After unloading of cement, Balbir Singh asked Balwant Singh to take away his truck. Gurdial Singh and Balwant Singh were talking with each other. In the meantime, accused Nishan Singh got up from there and started the truck and started taking the truck rashly out of the store. But he could not control the truck, which hit Balwant Singh, who came underneath the truck. Gurdial was also hit by the truck and he also suffered injuries. Gurdial Singh was also hit by the truck and he also suffered injuries. The bench was also broken on being hit by the truck. Ultimately the truck hit a tree and stopped. Balbir Singh and many other persons gathered at the spot. Balwant Singh was taken out from Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2003(O&M) 3 underneath the truck and in injured condition, he was taken in some other vehicle to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Kurukshetra. Immediately, on reaching there Balwant Singh expired. Gurdial Singh was medico legally examined vide MLR Exhibit PC and five injuries including two abrasions, two lacerated wounds and a swelling were found on his person. On receiving intimation, the police came to the hospital and record statement Exhibit PF of Gurdial Singh regarding the accident. He stated the above facts and also mentioned that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by accused Nishan Singh. On this statement FIR exhibit was recorded.” After hearing learned counsel for the partiesr, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. In the present case, Balwant Singh was the driver of the truck in question belonging to B.B.M.B. The driver parked the truck for unloading the cement. Balwant Singh then sat on a bench with Gurdial Singh and the petitioner under a tree. When the truck was unloaded, the petitioner got up and started the truck and drove it in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of this, Balwant Singh came underneath the truck and Gurdial Singh suffered injuries. Injured Gurdial Singh has duly supported the prosecution case while appearing in the witness box as PW-7. Merely because PW-8 Balbir Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2003(O&M) 4 Singh has not supported the prosecution version is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7 Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh had himself suffered injuries in the accident and hence, his presence is duly established at the spot. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the truck had itself started rolling due to the slop, is without any basis. In case the truck was to start rolling due to the slop then it would have done so while it was being unloaded. There was no occasion for the truck to move after it was unloaded. It appears that the said plea taken by the petitioner is an afterthought. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner, which hit Balwant Singh and Gurdial Singh, who were sitting on a bench and as a result Balwant Singh died and PW-7 Gurdial Singh suffered injuries. Hence, both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279/ 337/ 304-A IPC. It is not a case where the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. The petitioner, who was not authorised to drive the truck, had started driving the truck and due to his rash and negligent driving one persons has lost his life and other suffered injuries. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner titled Vaswa Nand vs. State 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 784 and Mahabir Singh vs. State 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 808 in this regard failed to Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2003(O&M) 5 advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 21, 2010 anita