IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.626 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.4.2010 Satnam Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner Satnam Singh was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 427 and 279 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala for the said offences vide judgment and order dated 2.3.2005. Aggrieved against the same, he (petitioner) filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide order dated 16.2.2010. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition assailing the said order dated 16.2.2010. The prosecution case is that ASI Kuldeep Singh along with other police officials was present at the police chowki on 27.10.1999. Ajit Singh-complainant son of Bhagat Singh came to the police chowki and got his statement recorded with ASI Kuldeep Singh which was to the effect that on the said day i.e. 27.10.1999 he (Ajit Singh) along with his brother Harbans Singh and Amrik Singh Crl. Revision No. 626 of 2010 [2] were coming from village Jaintipur towards village Sarupwali on their separate bi-cycles. Harbans Singh, the brother of the complainant Ajit Singh, was going ahead of them and his (Harbans Singh’s) bi-cycle was on the left side of the road. When they reached near village Sekhpur then scooter bearing registration No.PB02-8770 came at a very fast speed and hit the bi-cycle of Harbans Singh as a result of which he (Harbans Singh) fell on the road and sustained injuries. The scooter that came, it is alleged, by the complainant Ajit Singh was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by a young man aged around 30 years. A person of around 50 years of age was riding pillion on the said scooter. He also sustained some injuries. The person who was driving the scooter fled away from the spot along with the other person on his scooter. It was requested for taking legal action. On the basis of the statement of Ajit Singh, FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 304-A, 427 and 279 IPC. A supplementary statement of Ajit Singh, complainant was recorded on 28.10.1999. After completion of necessary formality, charge report (challan) was filed in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala. The learned trial Court formulated points which were to be considered i.e. whether Satnam Singh (petitioner) was driving the scooter on a public road in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the death of Harbans Singh and whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? After considering the evidence and material on record, the petitioner was Crl. Revision No. 626 of 2010 [3] found guilty for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; besides, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur after considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner has dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the identity of the petitioner was not established by the prosecution and neither any identification parade was conducted. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR and the scooter No.PB02-8770 is registered in the name of one Jagir Singh. The prosecution, it is submitted, could not explain as to how and in what capacity the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle. Both the witnesses, it is stated, are real brothers and there is no independent corroboration to their depositions. In any case, it is submitted that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial and prosecution for the last 10 years. Therefore, he is liable to be granted the benefit of probation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the same. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been duly considered by the Courts below. Crl. Revision No. 626 of 2010 [4] The complainant Ajit Singh appeared as PW1 and he deposed that the petitioner was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner on 27.10.1999. The scooter of the petitioner struck with the bi-cycle of Harbans Singh which resulted in his (Harbans Singh’s) death. Amrik Singh (PW3) who was also present with the complainant has also identified the petitioner and it was stated that the death of Harbans Singh had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Medical Officer, ESI Dispensary, Batala appeared as PW4. He conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Singh (deceased). It was stated that in his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injuries allegedly due to a road side accident. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Injury No.1, it was opined, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Nand Lal, Mechanic (PW2) had examined the scooter No.PB02-8770 and he proved his test report Ex.PX. Poonam, a clerk of DTO office appeared as PW5 and she proved the registration copy of the scooter bearing registration No.PB02-8770. The Investigating Officer appeared as PW6 and proved the investigations carried out by him. The learned trial Court held that the identity of the petitioner had been clearly established as both the eye-witnesses had identified him in Court. Ajit Singh (PW1) and Amrik Singh (PW3) deposed that the petitioner was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner which struck against the bi-cycle of Harbans Singh as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. The eye-witnesses, it was Crl. Revision No. 626 of 2010 [5] observed, had deposed in a fairly satisfactory manner and had withstood the lengthy cross-examination. Ajit Singh (PW1), complainant had also got his supplementary statement recorded on 28.10.1999 in which he mentions the name of the petitioner as the person who was driving the scooter and Jagir Singh as the person who was riding pillion. The registration copy of the scooter is in the name of said Jagir Singh. The offending scooter was thus being given by the petitioner and its owner Jagir Singh was riding pillion at the time of accident. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merit. The identity of the petitioner as the person driving the scooter has been established. The fact that his name is not mentioned in the FIR is inconsequential as Ajit Singh (PW1), complainant got his supplementary statement recorded on 28.10.1999, wherein he named the petitioner as the person who was driving the scooter. The contention that the scooter is registered in the name of one Jagir Singh which the prosecution could not explain is also devoid of merit. The witnesses being brothers of the deceased would not make any difference as they have no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the petitioner as the person who had caused the accident. The witnesses who are brothers of the deceased would rather ensure that the actual culprit is proceeded against convicted rather than an innocent person is held guilty for no fault of his. The fact that there was no independent witness is also not of much relevance as independent witnesses as is well-known are generally Crl. Revision No. 626 of 2010 [6] reluctant to appear as witnesses and even otherwise, Ajit Singh (PW1) and Amrik Singh (PW3) have no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. The contention that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last 10 years and therefore, he is liable to be granted the benefit of probation is also devoid of merit. The petitioner has caused the death of a person and he has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year. The sentence as awarded is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the orders passed by the Courts below is made out. The Crl. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 26, 2010 amit