IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2004 Date of decision: October 07, 2010 Amar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Amar Singh accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC; and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under Section 427 IPC. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.3.2004 had dismissed his appeal. In nutshell, the facts are that on 3.10.1997 Rakesh Kumar being Munim of M/s Dashmesh Trading Company, New Subzi Mandi, Ludhiana along with Ram Lal Bhathla partner of the said firm had come to Machhiwara on scooter bearing registration No. PB-10AT-4064 to collect the outstanding payments and at about 1.30 p.m. after collecting the payments, when they were returning, Ram Lal was driving the scooter whereas, the complainant (Rakesh Kumar) was sitting on the pillion. When they reached a little ahead of Rajgarh, then the accused while driving the tractor trolley bearing registration No.PB-10C-4580 mark Ford; rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and struck into their scooter. Resultantly, the front wheel of the tractor ran over the left shoulder and near the ear of Ram Lal. Resultantly, he suffered injuries near the left eye, shoulder and on the thumb of right foot. Ram Lal died at the spot. The accused came down to enquire about the accident and thereafter he ran away. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, formal FIR was registered. The case was investigated and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court. Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2004 -2- The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Sanjay Kapoor (PW1), Rakesh Kumar (PW2), Manjinder Singh (PW3), Khushwant Singh (PW4), Baldev Krishan (PW5), another Baldev Krishan (PW6), ASI Palwinder Singh (PW7), SI Harbans Singh (PW8), Jasbir Singh Clerk DTO Office (PW9), Surinder Kaur Clerk DTO Office (PW10) and Kanshi Ram (PW11). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the time of admission, learned counsel had urged that according to the medico-legal examination report there was no crush injuries, therefore, the observations made by the Appellate Court were not correct, but the said argument is found to be apparently incorrect. Dr. Sanjay Kapoor (PW1) in his medico-legal report had made the following observations :- “1. A contusion 11 cms x 8 cms present on face over left eyeball and nose and right temple black eyes present. Bleeding from nose and right ear is present. 2. A contusion 8 cms x 5 cms was present on left arm in the middle. 3. An abrasion 6 cms x 4 cms was present on right shoulder 2 cms medial to acrimony. On dissession Injury No.1 revealed collection of blood in subcutaneous. Both eyes were crushed, nasal bones are fractured, fracture of frontal bone was present. Fracture mastoid was present. Underline brain matter was lacerated. Subdural haematuma was present. Injury No.2 reveals fracture of humorous bone, there was collection of blood in sub-cut aneous. Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2004 -3- The cause of the death in this case is due to haemorrhage and shock caused by injuries No.1 ,2 and 3 which in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to culminate in death.” Even otherwise, the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused to the hilt. Rakesh Kumar has given complete details of the incident . The ocular version given by him fits in with the medical evidence. The complainant had the opportunity to see the accused, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. No flows in the prosecution evidence were seen, suggesting its unreliability. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance October 07, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge