Criminal Revision No. 698 of 2004 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 698 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 22-3-2010 Madan Lal ......... Petitioner Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: None for the petitioner Shri Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by accused Madan Lal against the judgment/order of sentence dated 12.5.2000 rendered by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and further sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for an identical period under Section 337 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The facts in brief are that on 26.3.1995 a wireless message was received in the control room that an accident had occurred involving a cycle Criminal Revision No. 698 of 2004 (O&M) 2 and a truck bearing registration No. CH-01-N-3710. On receipt thereof, the police party headed by Sub Inspector Nirbhjit Singh reached the spot. On learning that the injured has been removed to P.G.I. he went there. Anoop Singh made a statement before him in the terms that he and his brother-in- law( sister's husband) Amar Singh were coming towards Sector 41 from Phase II Mohali on their bicycle, which was being paddled by Amar Singh, whereas he was sitting on the carrier. When they reached near New Mohali barrier, the above mentioned truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from backside and hit their cycle. As a result of the impact, they both sustained multiple injuries. The truck was being driven by the accused. Amar Singh succumbed to the injuries at P.G.I. On the basis of this statement, formal F.I.R. was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279,337,304-A IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Murli Ram PW-1, Jugal Kishore Mechanic PW-2, Constable Mohinder Singh PW-3, Mohan Singh clerk PW-4, S.P.Bhardwaj PW-5, Anoop Singh PW-6, SI Puran Chand PW-7, Mohan Singh PW-8, Harnek Singh PW-9, Dr. S.K.Sharma PW-10, ASI Nirbhjit Singh PW-11 and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but Criminal Revision No. 698 of 2004 (O&M) 3 none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As urged in grounds of revision, PW-6 Anoop Singh being a close relative of the deceased, his evidence cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt. By no stretch of speculation, he can be described to be an independent witness. He being interested in the success of the case, his testimony ought to be discarded. This plea is unacceptable for the reason that the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. A glance through Anoop Singh's statement would reveal that he could not be shattered or shaken in any manner and stood like a rock during his cross- examination. If he had not witnessed the accident taking place, he in all probabilities would have fumbled here or there during his cross- examination. Thus, his testimony in no manner can be disbelieved. No other material plea has been raised in the grounds of revision. On scrutinizing and analyzing the testimony of Anoop Singh PW-6, it transpires that he was a natural witness. He being a close relative of the deceased, in the natural course of events, would have been going on the cycle being paddled by the deceased. A careful delving into judgments recorded by both the courts below, would reveal that no fault can be found therewith. Sequelly the conviction is maintained. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since March, 1995. This incident is about 15 years old. On instructions from Assistant Superintendent, Model Jail Burail, learned standing counsel for U.T. Criminal Revision No. 698 of 2004 (O&M) 4 Chandigarh submits that the petitioner has undergone one month and six days of the actual sentence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (one month and six days). However, the fine with it default clause is maintained. With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 22, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No