Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2804 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 11, 2010 Amar Nath ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Iqbal S. Mann,Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code ( for short `IPC') vide judgment dated 3.10.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Kharar. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Sections 279 IPC. He was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 338 IPC. He was also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Additional Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 2 Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar. Hence, the present revision petition by petitioner. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, read as under:- “2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.1.1999 ASI Balkar Singh recorded the statement of Balbir Singh to the effect that he was working as Driver on bus bearing No. CH-01- G-5398 in CTU Depot No.2 Chandigarh. On 27.1.1999 he alongwith Conductor Sarabjit Singh by taking passengers were coming from Gurudwara Manji Sahib via Samrala to Chandigarh. When at about 7.55 AM they were 200 yards beyond Gharuan Petrol Pump and were on their correct side, there was dense fog, at that time truck bearing No.CHW-3753, being driven by accused Amar Nath came from Gharuan side in a rash and negligent manner without giving any horn struck the same against the bus on the driver side emergency door, as a result of which driver of the bus became unconscious and fell down on his hand in ditch, and the passengers namely Karam Singh, Mandeep Singh and Kulwinder Kaur sustained injuries and due to injuries Karam Singh and Mandeep Kaur became unconscious. Then the complainant and other persons took the injured persons to Civil Hospital, Kharar and injured Karam Singh and Mandeep Kaur died on the way to hospital. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. On the basis of this statement formal FIR under Section 279, 337,338, 304-A IPC was registered and investigation was started. “ Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. The petitioner was driving the truck at the time of accident and had struck against the bus which resulted into death of Karam Singh and Mandeep Singh. Kulwinder Kaur suffered injuries in the accident. Learned trial Court in para 10 of its judgment has held as under:- “While applying the above ingredients viz-a-viz the evidence led by the prosecution firstly taking up the identification of the accused just quite clear from the deposition of Balbir Singh PW-1 (complainant) coupled with the deposition of Kulwinder Kaur injured/eye witness as PW2 that the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused Amar Narth by driving the offending truck bearing registration No. CHW-3753 and by no other mode. It is further pertinent to mention here that after lengthy cross-examination of both material witnesses i.e. Balbir Singh as PW1 and Kulwinder Kaur as PW2 the identification of the accused could not be established or blemished. Thus, the first ingredient stands fully proved and quite clear that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused Amar Nath while driving the offending truck bearing registration No. CHW-3753 on 27.1.1999 in the area of village Gharuan. Moreover, it is also worth mentioning here that except for the mere denial regarding the prosecution story and also regarding the material documents proved by the Investigating Officer the accused had nothing to say in his defence to establish his innocence because extensive evidence led Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 4 by the prosecution. As far as the alleged negligent driving of the accused is concerned although it has not been directly by the complainant Balbir Singh and Kulwinder Kaur who while appearing as PW-1 and PW-2 but at the same time it has been well explained by both these material witnesses as to how the said accident took place. They deposed categorically in their respective deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 that since there was a lot of fog and the accused while driving the offending truck bearing registration No. CHW-3753 neither had switched on the head light nor used horn to give signal of precaution to the bus nor did anything to show its presence on the road i.e. by using the head light or fog light. The deposition of the complainant Balbir Singh and eye witness Kulwinder Kaur is very much natural and is not a parrot like manner so as to give impression to the court to be as tuited witnesses. As far as the injuries suffered on the person of Kulwinder Kaur are concerned Dr. K.K.Gupta beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt proved the x-ray films as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and lateron proved by Shamsher Singh Radiographer PW7/A alongwith the carbon copy of the MLR as Ex.PC, the opinion of the doctor as Ex.PD and the information given to the police by the Dr.K.K.Gupta vide Ex.PE which categorically reflected that the patient had been brought to the Hospital on account of some road side accident. It is quite clear from the perusal of the file that this fact had at no stage been rebutted by the defence counsel. As far as the death of Karam Singh and Mandip Singh is concerned the post mortem report of Karam Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 5 Singh stand duly proved by Dr. Salinder Kaur who while appearing as PW4 proved the carbon copy of the MLR as Ex.PB which clearly reflects that dead body of Karam Singh was brought by Constable Ram Chand and the cause of death was due to the road side accident. Resultantly the mechanical reports placed on the file is complete in itself to connect the death of Karam Singh and injuries suffered on the person of Kulwinder Kaur on account of road side accident and by no other mode and since the accused stands duly identified by the complainant Balbir Singh PW1 and injured/eye witness Kulwinder Kaur he stands well connected and linked with the alleged occurrence. It is worth mentioning here that in the absence of any PMR having been proved by the doctor regarding the death of deceased Mandip Singh it cannot be said that the death of Mandip Singh took place due to the said accident on 27.1.1999 on account of rash and negligent driving by the accused and by no other mode. But since the charge framed against the accused under Section 279, 338,304-A IPC regarding causing grievous hurt to Kulwinder Kaur and further causing the death of Karam Singh stands fully proved as per the prosecution version. However, in the absence of any defence evidence except for the mere denial, this court in view of the above discussion finds sufficient grounds to hold the accused guilty. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.” Learned appellate Court in para 14 of its judgment has held as under:- “I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 6 the appellant, because complainant Balbir Singh, who has appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and injured Kulwinder Kaur who has appeared in the witness box as PW-2 are the star witnesses and they have fully proved the rash and negligent act of the accused/appellant and they have also identified the accused/appellant. PW1 Balbir Singh complainant coupled with the deposition of Kulwinder Kaur injured/eye witness as PW-2 have categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused Amar Nath while driving the offending truck bearing No. CHW-3753. It is further deposed by both the witnesses that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused Amar Nath, while driving the offending truck and as such the identity of the accused has been fully established. Therefore, the authorities referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, are not helpful to the accused/appellant, because the complainant as well as the eye witness have fully established the identity of the accused and also proved the occurrence, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused Amar Nath. Secondly, complainant Balbir Singh and Kulwinder Kaur while appearing in the witness box as PW1 and PW2 deposed that at the time of accident there was a lot of fog and the accused/appellant while driving the offending truck neither had switched on the head lights nor used horn to give signal of precaution to the bus, nor did anything to show its presence on the road i.e. by using the Headlights or other lights. As such the deposition of complainant Balbir Singh and eye Crl.Revision No. 2804 of 2010 7 witness Kulwinder Kaur is very much natural. Moreover, the testimony of complainant as well as eye witness is further corroborated with the medical evidence. Dr. K.K.Gupta has proved the x-ray films Ex.P1 and P2 and lateron these documents were proved by Shamsher Singh, Radiographer and the prosecution also proved the copy of MLR Ex.PC. opinion of the doctor Ex.PB. As per medical evidence it has also been proved that the injuries have been caused due to accident. As such the testimony of PW-1 Balbir Singh and PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur who is injured and eye witness has been well contacted and linked with the alleged occurrence. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature. On perusal of the complainant as well as eye witness it has been fully proved that the prosecution has established the identity of the accused/appellant and also proved the rash and negligent act of the accused/appellant. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable.” The reasons given by both the Courts below, while passing the judgments, are sound reasons. Learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading of the evidence by the Courts below. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 11, 2010 arya