Crl. Revision No. 2884 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2884 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.12.2011 Joga 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. Satnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Joga Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision petition against judgment dated 07.01.2008, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, by virtue of which petitioner was convicted under Sections 279,337,304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 279 IPC; he was also 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 simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 337 IPC; and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A IPC as well as against judgment dated 18.10.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, by virtue of which appeal preferred by Crl. Revision No. 2884 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the petitioner-accused was dismissed, however, the sentence was reduced from two years to one year under Section 304-A IPC. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that Rakesh Sharma lodged a report to the police to the effect that on 21.06.2006 he along with his nephew Amit Sharma and niece Amana Sharma, Kamana Sharma and Bhawana Sharma was coming from Islamabad from Bajwara. Amit Sharma was driving the scooter and he (Rakesh Sharma) was sitting on the pillion and when they reached in the area of Islamabad a Jeep bearing registration No.PB-07-J-9355, driven by Joga Singh-petitioner, came at a high speed and hit the scooter of his niece Kamana Sharma, as a result of which she died at the spot while her sister sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of this statement a case was registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation the challan was presented against the accused. After framing of the charge the prosecution examined ten witnesses and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his false implication, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, both the courts below convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the deceased was negligent in causing the accident as she was driving the scooter in question in the middle of the road and as such the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the rash and negligent driving, therefore, he is liable to be acquitted. He has further argued that at the most the petitioner can be said to be held Crl. Revision No. 2884 of 2011 (O&M) 3 guilty for the contributory negligence and as such the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. The date, time and place of the accident in question are admitted by the petitioner. His only plea is that the scooterist was negligent in causing the accident in question and at the most the present case can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. In the opinion of this Court the moment case of contributory negligence is taken by the accused, his negligence stands proved. After going through the records, I find that Rakesh Sharma PW2 has categorically deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, as a result of which Kamana Sharma and Bhawana Sharma sustained injuries, which ultimately proved fatal to Kamana Sharma. His statement is corroborated by PW1 Bhawana Sharma in support of the witness. Both these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version on all material points. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence have convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment passed by both the courts below. As a sequel to my above discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) December 14, 2011 Judge Anand