Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 Date of decision: 31.03.2010 Sadhu Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh r/o Pabbian, the. Jagraon, District Ludhiana. ....... Revision petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the revision-petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.3.2003, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.8.1999, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which it convicted the accused(now revision petitioner), and sentenced him to undergo RI for six Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 10 days, for the offence, under Section 279 IPC, further sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 12 days, for the offence, punishable under Section 337 IPC, further sentenced him, to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 15 days, for the offence, under Section 338 IPC, and further sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 20 days, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-A IPC. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On 24.08.1991, Malook Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, received information, that the complainant was lying injured in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. On receipt of this message, he reached Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, and obtained the opinion of the doctor, as to whether Gurmail Singh, injured, was fit to make statement. After the doctor certified that he was fit to Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 3 make statement, he recorded his statement. Gurmail Singh, injured, in his statement, stated that he was a resident of village Ayali Kalan and an agriculturist by profession. One Kuldip Singh son of Pritam Singh, r/o village Ayali Kalan, was driver of van bearing No. PIM-1002. It was further stated by the complainant that he alongwith Ranjit Singh son of Hardev Singh, r/o Ayali Kalan, Harjit Singh s/o Hardev Singh and Ranjit Singh, went to see the relative of Ranjit Singh, at village Dhatt. The said van was being driven by Kuldip Singh. At about 7.30 PM, when they entered the boundary of village Pandori at G.T. Road, one truck was found going infront of their van, towards Jagraon. When Kuldip Singh, tried to overtake that truck, another truck, from the opposite side, being driven, in a rash or negligent manner, came and struck against the van, aforesaid. The van was dragged by the truck, bearing registration No.PUK-7529, being driven by the accused (petitioner), as a result whereof, Kuldip Singh, Ranjit Singh and Harjit Singh, and the complainant, himself, sustained injuries, on their person. The vehicle of the Police on patrol duty, carried the injured to Civil Hospital, where Kuldip Singh, Ranjit Singh and Harjit Singh, succumbed to their injuries. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, made by complainant/injured, FIR was registered. The statements of the Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 4 witnesses were recorded. The site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented. 4. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Hardev Singh, (PW-1), Gurmail Singh, complainant-cum-injured, (PW-2), Kamaljit Singh,(PW-3), Dr. G.P. Mangla, (PW-4), Chhange Lal, (PW-5) and Dr. Daljit Singh, (PW-6). Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not adduce any evidence, in defence. 7. After hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 5 convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, an appeal, was filed by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide order dated 15.03.2003. 9. Still feeling dis-satisfied, , the instant revision-petition has been filed by the petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that it was the accused, who was rash or negligent, in driving the truck, in question, as a result whereof, the accident took place, resulting into injuries on four person, out of whom, three succumbed to the same lateron. He has further submitted that on the other hand, the driver of the van in which the complainant and the deceased were travelling, was rash and negligent, in driving the vehicle and in the process of over- taking the truck going ahead was hit by the on coming truck, being driven by the accused. He has further submitted that, under these circumstances, the accused, did not commit any Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 6 offence. He has further submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent-State, has submitted that the very factum of seriousness of the accident, can be imagined because as many as three persons, who received injuries therein, died. He has further submitted that sufficient evidence was produced by the prosecution, to prove that the accused, being the driver of truck, in question, was rash or negligent, in driving the same, leading to the accident, resulting into injuries on four persons, out of whom, three injured succumbed to the same. He has further submitted that the Courts below, were right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused, while driving the truck, in question, in a rash or negligent manner, caused the accident. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The only plea of the accused(petitioner) is that the accident in question, took place, due to the rash or negligent driving of Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 7 the van, while over-taking the truck, going ahead, and, in the meanwhile, the truck, being driven by the accused, who was on his correct side, struck against it (van), as a result whereof, four persons were injured, out of whom, three succumbed to the injuries. The mere fact that the accident took place, when the driver of the van was overtaking the truck going ahead of it, did not mean that he was rash or negligent. Had the truck, been driven by the accused, at a normal speed, the accident would have been avoided by applying brakes. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner invited my attention, to the site plan, to prove that the accused, was not rash or negligent in driving the truck, in question. However, from the site plan, rashness or negligence of the accused could not be determined. It was a rough site plan, which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, after going to the spot much after the accident had taken place. The ocular evidence of Gurmail Singh, (PW-2), complainant-cum-injured, who was travelling, in the same van, which met with an accident with the truck, in question, being driven by the accused, was rightly found to be cogent, convincing,reliable and trust-worthy by the Courts below. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can not re-appraise and re- appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until Crl. Revision No. 760 of 2003 8 and unless it comes to the conclusion, that there was mis- reading or mis-appreciation of the same, or material piece of evidence, was ignored by the Courts below, while deciding the case. In the instant case, such a situation does not prevail. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, are based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence. The same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 14. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 15. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE March 31, 2010 dinesh