IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 1642 of 2001 Date of Decision:February 10, 2009 Amrik Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate and Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General Haryana. Sabina, J. Amrik Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide judgment dated 5.7.1999. Vide order dated 6.7.1999, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC vide judgment dated 1.10.2001. However, the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence, the present revision petition. Crl.Revision No. 1642 of 2001 -2- The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment are as under:- “The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal might be stated thus:- On 16.9.1992, Assistant Sub Inspector Dharam Singh of Police Station, City Kaithal alongwith his police party was present at railway crossing (railway Phatak), Karnal road Kaithal in connection with patrolling, when complainant Kulwant Singh son of Kapoor Singh met him and got recorded his statement at Ex.PA, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. According to the allegations, complainant Kulwant Singh was an agriculturist by profession. On 16.9.1992, he was going from Kaithal towards his village Dussain. He was waiting for some vehicle at the railway crossing Karnal road, Kaithal. In the meantime, a tractor- trolley being driven by deceased Angrej Singh and occupied by deceased Kuldeep Singh, both sons of Amar Singh, came from Kaithal side. The complainant took the lift and boarded the tractor. When at about 1 P.M., the tractor reached near the first gate of sugar mills, Kaithal, the offending truck no. HYT-9534 being driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit truck' s left side to the right side of the trolley, attached with the tractor, as a result of which, the tractor-trolley turned turtle on the left side of the road and fell into the pits. Driver Angrej Singh and occupant Kuldeep Singh of the tractor, both died on the spot. The Crl.Revision No. 1642 of 2001 -3- complainant also received injuries. The accident was also witnessed by Jaswant Singh Sarpanch, who was coming on his back side on his own tractor. The complainant already knew the appellant-driver of the offending truck, because he had seen him in the Kaithal Union. The driver, after stopping the truck at the spot made good escape. The complainant was going to the police station to lodge the report, but on the way, ASI Dharam Singh met him, with whom, he lodged the report. After recording the statement of the complainant at Ex.PA, ASI Dharam Singh made his endorsement Ex.PF and sent the case to the police station, where formal FIR was recorded. Site plan, Ex.PK was prepared with correct marginal notes. The place was got photographed. The truck and the tractor-trolley were taken into possession, vide memos Ex.PB and Ex.PC respectively. Inquest report on the dead bodies were prepared. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination. The injured namely complainant Kulwant Singh was got medico legally examined. 3. Appellant Amrik Singh was arrested on the same day and from his possession, registration certificate and his driving licence were taken into possession, per memo Ex. PR. The vehicles were got mechanically tested. After the necessary investigations were over, the case was sent up for trial of the appellant.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the complainant-Kulwant Singh (PW2). Crl.Revision No. 1642 of 2001 -4- The said witness during his cross-examination has deposed that his thumb impressions had been taken by the Police on blank papers. The doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased had not been examined. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case. Dr. B.B.Kakkar (PW1) proved the injuries suffered by Kulwant Singh (PW2). Complainant-Kulwant Singh (PW2) while appearing in the witness box, has deposed that the truck driven by petitioner had struck against the tractor on which he was travelling along with Kuldeep Singh. The tractor was being driven by Angrej Singh. As a result of the accident, Angrej Singh and Kuldeep singh died at the spot. Jaswant Singh (PW3) has corroborated the statement of Kulwant Singh(PW2) with regard to the manner of the accident. Rameshwar Dass (PW4) had mechanically examined the truck as well as the tractor in question. Amar Singh (PW5) had identified the dead bodies of Angrej Singh and Kuldeep Singh at the spot. Dharam Singh Investigating Officer (PW6) has deposed with regard to the registration of the FIR on the basis of the statement of the complainant-Kulwant Singh (PW2). He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he went to the spot and prepared rough site plan. The truck was taken in possession from the spot. He also carried out proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thus, prepared inquest reports with regard to the dead bodies of deceased i.e. Crl.Revision No. 1642 of 2001 -5- Exhibits PM and PN. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination. Although, in the present case, the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased has not been examined yet as per the eye witness account, both Angrej Singh and Kuldeep Singh had died at the spot. Investigating Officer reached at the spot and prepared the inquest report with regard to the dead bodies of deceased- Angrej Singh and Kuldeep Singh. In these circumstances, the non-examination of the doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination, is not fatal to the prosecution case. Complainant in his examination- in- chief has duly proved the prosecution case. He has also admitted his thumb impression on his statement recorded by the Police Exhibit PA on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. In these circumstance, merely because, he stated in his cross-examination that he did not know on how many papers he has affixed his thumb impressions or that the police had taken his thumb impressions on the blank papers would not be fatal to prosecution case as he has clearly deposed in his examination- in -chief that he had got recorded his statement before the police Exhibit PA and has thumb marked the same. Moreover, eye witness account is duly corroborated by Jaswant Singh (PW3) . The tractor driven by the petitioner was also recovered from the spot. The accident in question had occurred during day time and truck driven by the petitioner had struck against the tractor from behind. This fact is sufficient to lead an inference that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner by driving the offending truck. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments of the Courts Crl.Revision No. 1642 of 2001 -6- below call for no interference as the prosecution has been successful in proving its case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 10, 2009 arya