Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 7.12.2010 Darshan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Darshan Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections, 279/ 337/ 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of ` 1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.9.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Rupnagar. Hence, the Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) 2 present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “On 14.1.2003, ASI recorded the statement of complainant Harpal Singh to the effect that he is running a utensils shop at Ghanauli and on 13.1.2003 he came to his in-laws house situated in Mohalla Shekhan, Ropar. In the night his father-in-law told him theat they will drop him at his village Thali Khurd and will also meet his children on account of Lohri festival. Then they started their Maruti Car No.PAM- 5753. The members of his in-law's family namely Sandeep kaur, Satwinder Kaur, Narindedr Kaur along with him sat in the car and his father in law Prem Singh started driving the car. At about 9.30 pm when they reached in the turning of village Ahmadpur Dugri, then a tanker bearing No. PBW-6823 came from the opposite side and while overtaking another truck came at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner and struck against their car and dragged the car to a sufficient distance. Due to this impact his father in law Prem Singh and Sandeep kaur received multiple grievous injuries and died at the spot and Satwinder Kaur and Narindedr Kaur also received multiple injuries on their person and after arranging some vehicle the injured were Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) 3 taken to civil hospital, Ropar. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. On the basis of this statement formal FIR under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 IPC was registered and investigation was started.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no identification parade was conducted in this case. The material witnesses had failed to identified the petitioner . After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Learned trial Court in para 20 of the impugned judgment has held as under:- “PW-3 Satwinder Kaur, eye witness and the injured in the present case has stated that on 13.1.2003, her son in law Harpal Singh came to see them at Ropar from Thali Khurd. In the night, her husband told that they would drop Harpal Singh at village Thali Khurd and they also to meet the children on account of the Lohri. Then hus husband started for Thali Khurd in the maruti car No.5733 in which her elder daughter, her son in law Harpal Singh and her younger daughter Narinder Kaur along with her sat in the car and the car was being driven by her husband. It was about 9.30 pm and when they reached in the area of village Ahmedpur, then a tanker No.PBW- Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) 4 6823 came from the opposite side, while overtaking another truck, in a rash and negligent manner and struck the car in which they were travelling, as a result of which the occupants of the car received multiple grievous injuries and due to the accident her husband Prem Singh and elder daughter Sandeep Kaur died, whereas, she and her younger daughter Narinder Kaur received multiple injuries in the accident.” Learned Appellate Court in para Nos. 16 and 18 of the impugned judgment has held as under:- “16. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant because in order to prove the rash and negligent act, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Harpal Singh who has clearly deposed in his statement that the accident took place in his presence. He also proved his statement Ex.PA on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. He also deposed that the accused was driving the truck/ tanker at the time of accident, in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the death of Prem Singh and Sandeep kaur and injuries to Narinder Kaur and Satwinder Kaur. Similarly PW-3 Satwinder Kaur, who is injured and eye witness of the accident has also corroborated the testimony of complainant Harpal Singh. Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) 5 She also deposed that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver. Similarly, PW-4 Narinder Kaur has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Harpal Singh and PW-3 Satwinder Kaur, who is injured. She also deposed that the accident took place in his presence, caused by the accused. Since the complainant as well as eye witnesses have fully proved the identity of the accused, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. 18. I also find no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, because there is no major discrepancy in the statements of PW-1 Harpal Singh, PW-3 Satwinder Kaur and PW-4 Narinder Kaur and the small discrepancies can occur after lapse of time. Moreover, their testimony in corroborated with the medical evidence and other witnesses. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while ordering the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279/ 337/ 304-A IPC are sound reasons. The Appellate Court has also given sound reasons while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was driving a tanker at the time of the alleged Criminal Revision No. 3239 of 2010(O&M) 6 occurrence and while trying to overtake another truck, struck against a Maruti Car. As a result of this accident, two persons have died. The vehicle driven by the petitioner was recovered from the spot. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 07, 2010 anita