IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.624 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.4.2009 Santokh Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Saron Present: Mr.M.D.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. S.S.Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 24.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide judgment and order dated 9.6.2007, has been dismissed. The complainant-Shamsher Singh got his statement (Ex.PA) recorded on 16.2.2002 with the police wherein it was inter alia stated that he had four sons and on the said date, the complainant-Shamsher Singh alongwith his sons Gurpreet Singh and Sham Singh; besides, his cousin Sahib Singh was going towards Balbehra to get the gas cyclinder filled. Gurpreet Singh and Sham Singh were going on a Bajaj-Chetak scooter bearing registration No.PB-11C -3534. Gurpreet Singh was driving the scooter and Sham Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. The complainant and his cousin Sahib Singh were going on scooter bearing registration No.PB- 11F-3611. The scooter that was being driven by Gurpreet Singh with Sham Crl.Revision No.624 of 2009 2 Singh on it was ahead of the scooter of the complainant and Sahib Singh. When they reached near the house of Prem Bahadur resident of Balbehra, on the Patiala-Cheeka Road at about 1:30 p.m. a roadways bus bearing registration No.PB011A9242 PRTC1, which was being driven at a very rash speed and in negligent manner hit the scooter of Gurpeet Singh and Sham Singh, as a result, Gurpreet Singh and Sham Singh died at the spot . The driver of the bus fled from the spot, leaving behind the bus there. Later on, the name of the driver came to be known as Santokh Singh resident of Fauji Plot, Pehowa. The scooter with registration No.PB-11C-3534 was also badly damaged. The accident was caused due to the negligence or rashness of the driver Santokh Singh (petitioner). On the basis of said statement Ex.PA of the complainant, FIR No.72 dated 16.2.2002 was registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala. The police carried out the investigation in the case. The petitioner was arrested on 22.2.2002. After completing investigation, police report (challan) was filed in the court. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses; besides, documents were tendered in evidence. The substance of the evidence, appearing against the petitioner was put to him in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied the allegations leveled against him and pleaded himself as innocent and that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala after considering the evidence and material on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304A IPC vide his judgment dated 9.6.2007. By a separate order passed on the same day, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years; besides, ordered to pay a fine of Crl.Revision No.624 of 2009 3 Rs.2500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order, preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide her judgment and order dated 24.2.2009 has dismissed the same. The petitioner aggrieved against the said orders of the learned courts below has preferred the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that conclusions and findings reached at by the courts below, are not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the identity of the petitioner has not been proved or established and the petitioner had been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer in the case has not been examined and this aspect has not been given due weightage by the learned courts below. Besides, it is submitted that it is a case of contributory negligence as Gurpreet Singh was carrying a gas cylinder on the scooter while driving. Learned State counsel has submitted that the identity of the petitioner has been clearly established. Sahib Singh, PW-3 had named the petitioner who was known to him earlier as well as he used to travel with him in the same bus. On the strength of the same, it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was no iota of doubt left as to the identity of the accused. Besides Jarnail Singh, PW-8, senior Clerk Head- office, PRTC Patiala has stated that as per register, the petitioner, Santokh Singh was on duty of bus No.9242 which was enroute from Patiala to Pehowa. It is submitted that said bus was involved in the accident and as per duty roster, the petitioner was driving the same. The non-recording of the evidence of the Investigating Officer it is submitted is inconsequential. He Crl.Revision No.624 of 2009 4 was only to prove the investigation carried out by him which in any case can be proved from the other oral evidence. It is also submitted that the fact of a gas cylinder being carried by Gurpeet Singh on his scooter was duly considered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It may be noticed that both the courts below have concurrently held that the case against the petitioner stands proved on the basis of evidence and material on record. Otherwise, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can look into the correctness and propriety of any findings if it is proved that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and unsustainable in law which indeed is not the position in the present case. The identification of the petitioner as the person who was driving the bus is established from the deposition of Sahib Singh, PW-3. Sahib Singh, PW-3 is an eye witness to the occurrence and was on the scooter being driven by the complainant Shamsher Singh. He has inter alia deposed that the accused-petitioner was known to him as he used to travel in the bus driven by him. Besides, Jarnail Singh, PW-8, who working as senior Clerk Head-office, PRTC Patiala has stated that as per register, the petitioner Santokh Singh was on duty in the offending bus No.9242 on 16.2.2002 which was enroute from Patiala to Pehowa. His statement in this regard was recorded by the police. Besides, a copy of the register was tendered in evidence as Ex.PW8/8. Therefore, it cannot be said that the identity of the petitioner is not established. As regards the fact that the investigating officer has not been examined, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Crl.Revision No.624 of 2009 5 Magistrate, Patiala observed that the investigating officer in the present case is only a formal witness. It may be noticed that the FIR was recorded on the statement (Ex.PA) of complainant-Shamsher Singh (PW-2) and he was an eye witness in the case inasmuch as his scooter was following the scooter being driven by Gurpreet Singh, deceased. Therefore, mere non- examination of the investigating officer in the facts and circumstances of the case has caused no defect in the prosecution case, which would warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. As regards the allegation of contributory negligence, it may be noticed that this aspect has also been duly dealt with and considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. It was observed from the statements of Shamsher Singh PW-2 and Sahib Singh PW-3 that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the scooter and crushed the occupants. The occupants of the scooter died on the spot. The said fact shows that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. It is not a case where the scooter driver fell from the scooter while trying to manage the gas cylinder that was being carried. Therefore, the manner in which accident occurred is clear and the occupants of the scooter died on the spot on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. There is, therefore, no merit in the revision petitioner and the same is accordingly dismissed. [ S.S.Saron ] Judge 17.04.2009 sd