IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2004 Date of decision: September 30, 2010 Karan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 14.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- under Section 304-A IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 21.5.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. the complainant Swaran Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') along with Shubh Karan Singh as pillion rider was going on his bullet motor cycle from Dhuri towards his village Bhasaur. His father Harbans Singh was also going ahead of him on his bajaj chetak scooter bearing registration No.PB-10H-7998. When they reached near the gate of Rice Mills of Maingal Sain, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.HR- 32-2193 rashly and negligently came from the side of Malerkotla and struck against the scooter driven by his father. As a result thereof, Harbans Singh fell down and received injuries. He along with Subh Karan Singh took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation challan against him was presented in the court. Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2004 -2- The accused was charged under Section 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. R.P. Jindal (PW1), Swaran Singh complainant (PW2), C. Avtar Singh (PW3), Ram Phal (PW4), ASI Prem Singh (PW5), Jaspal Singh photographer (PW6), Shubh Karan Singh (PW7), ASI Darshan Singh (PW8) and Kharaiti Lal Clerk DTO Office Kurukshetra (PW9). 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. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The star witness in this case is the complainant Swaran Singh (PW1) who while appearing in the witness box has supported the prosecution version on all material points. His testimony further finds corroboration from the statement of Shubh Karan Singh (PW7) who is an eye witness of the occurrence. Both of them have consistently stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused. They also identified the accused in the court to be the person who was driving the offending truck at the time of the occurrence. They were subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing fruitful could elicited which could of any help to the accused. Further more, the prosecution version further finds support from the testimony of Ram Phal (PW4) who is the owner of the offending truck bearing registration No.HR-32-2193. He has categorically deposed that he is the owner of the truck and he had employed the accused as driver on the said truck. He has further stated that the police had impounded his truck which was later on taken by him on supurdari from the court. As regards the discrepancies pointed out in the testimonies of the witnesses, it may be observed that these discrepancies are minor in nature and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution version, rather, they are bound to occur in the testimonies of the truthful witnesses. No other argument has been advanced. Criminal Revision No. 713 of 2004 -3- Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition the same is dismissed. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. September 30, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge