CRR No.2371 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2371 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2011 Tehal Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Accused/revisionists have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, as well as the order dated 5.9.2011 passed by learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-I, Hoshiarpur, whereby accused/revisionist has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and 160 of the Railway Act. Brief facts of the present case are that the FIR in the case resulted on the statement of Rakesh Kumar that on 20.3.2004 at about 10.40 a.m., Bal Kishan cabin man asked him to close the railway crossing pursuant thereto he started rotating the wheel for closing the said gate. When the gate was closed half the way, one TATA 407 bearing No.PB-07H-6588 driven in rash and negligent manner in high speed entered into the railway track and remmed the pole of the gate of the other side due to which the pole broken down and it rammed into the head of scooterist standing there due to which he fell down and was transported to the Civil Hospital, Tanda. At that time Sucha Singh and CRR No.2371 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Satnam Singh present also witnessed the occurrence. The driver of TATA 407 bearing No.PB-07H-6588 was Sikh aged 40/45 years known as Tehal Singh. The vehicle in question was got mechanically checked. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused/petitioner. Chargesheet was served upon the accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and thereafter closed its evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the petitioner denied all the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded his innocence and false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence available on the record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused for offences under Section 270, 304-A IPC and under Section 160 of the Railway Act. In an appeal, learned Appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the Court below have ignored the fact that the truck in question, which was allegedly driven by the petitioner, was loaded with liquor and as such it was being plied at a slow speed and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident rather the deceased was at fault for causing the accident but both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and as such the judgments of conviction/sentence passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I find that PW14, Rakesh Kumar, has categorically deposed that when he started closing the gate of the railway crossing and it was in half way, TATA 407, bearing No. PB-07H-6588, which was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, entered from the Tanda side ad rammed into the pole of the gate of the other side, as a result of which pole stuck on the head of Harpreet Singh, CRR No.2371 of 2011 (O&M) -3- which ultimately proved fatal. His statement is also corroborated by PW6 and PW7 as well as by medical evidence. In view of this, it can safely be held that the petitioner was rash and negligent in causing the accident in question as a result of which Harpreet Singh suffered fatal injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error of law or jurisdictional error or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is ample evidence available on the record which goes to prove guilt of the accused/petitioner. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I can re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge October 03, 2011 R.S.