-1- Criminal Revision No.749 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.749 of 2002. Date of Decision: February 05, 2010. Amrik Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajive Malhotra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Amrik Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). For the former offence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous -2- Criminal Revision No.749 of 2002. imprisonment for one year and for the latter offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. In this case, the petitioner, who was a Driver with the Haryana Roadways, was driving the offending bus on 13.10.1994 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident with the Car being driven by Arun Kumar. Arun Kumar succumbed to the injuries suffered by him during the accident. After causing the accident, the petitioner had fled away from the scene of crime. In this case, Jagdish Kumar (complainant), P.W.1 and Jarnail Singh, P.W.2, who were standing at Bus Stand Naggal where the accident had taken place, have given the eye-witness account of the accident. Although both Jagdish Kumar (P.W.1) and Jarnail Singh (P.W.2), did not name the accused, yet, on all other material particulars, they supported the prosecution version. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment when some witnesses try to help the accused for one reason or the other. The dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses to some extent, does not at all affect the prosecution case. In this case, besides the statements of Jagdish Kumar (P.W.1) and Jarnail Singh (P.W.2), there is -3- Criminal Revision No.749 of 2002. the statement of Ajay Kumar (P.W.6), who was travelling with Arun Kumar (since deceased) in the ill-fated car. The petitioner was identified by Ajay Kumar (P.W.6). Still further, the prosecution placed on record the Duty Roster (Exhibit P.W.3/A) of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner was driving the offending bus at the relevant time. The Duty Roster Exhibit P.W.3/A was proved by Hari (P.W.3), Duty Inspector of Sub Depot, Haryana Roadways, Naraingarh. As such, there is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner-accused. As such, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Code. The sentence awarded to him also commensurates with the offence committed by him. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. February 05, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE