Crl. Revision No. 1675 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1675 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 4, 2011 Joginder Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 25.7.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ` 4000/- under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code as well as against judgment dated 22.4.2010, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment/order was dismissed. Succinctly the facts necessary for the disposal are that complainant’s marriage was solemnized about three years back with Pinku, daughter of Ashok Kumar, resident of Mani Majra. On 10.12.2001, the marriage of his sister-in-law (Saali) Puja was to be solemnized, due to which Vinod Kumar, his son Monu and Som Nath, residents of Mani Majra Crl. Revision No. 1675 of 2010 (O&M) 2 had come in their car bearing No. CH-01E-1005 to take them to Mani Majra in the marriage and when they all along with his wife Pinku were going in the said car, he and is father Dr. Rattan Kumar were following them in their own car bearing No.PB-10E-505, for some shopping at Sangrur. When they reached near Kaler Poultry Farm, it was 2.30 p.m. The car of his in-laws was 30 karms ahead of them and in the meantime a truck was seen coming from the Sangrur side, being driven rashly and negligently and collided with car bearing No.CH-01E-1005 and when they came near the accident, driver of the truck told his name as Joginder Singh, resident of Hoshiarpur and truck was bearing No.PB-10AP-5643 and they also found Vinod Sharma, Som Nath, Monu and his wife died at the spot and damage to the car was also caused due to impact of this accident. After leaving Dr. Rattan Kumar at the spot, he was going to Police Station to inform and thereafter his statement was recorded at T-point Bhikhi, which was read over and explained to him, who after admitting it correct, signed the same and after making endorsement Ex.PA/1, it was sent to Police Station through constable Jarnail Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded by SHO Tarsem Singh. Besides, the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PB was prepared. Post mortem examinations of the deceased were got conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested. Photographs of place of accident and driving licence of accused and RC were taken into possession. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned lower Court for trial. After framing of the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution adduced its evidence and examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the petitioner-accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded his false implication. Crl. Revision No. 1675 of 2010 (O&M) 3 After appreciating the evidence, available on record, and after hearing both the parties the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as noticed above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove on record that the petitioner was driving the truck in question on the fateful day and in fact he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot nor his name figures in the FIR and as such his identification for the first time in the Court, is no identity in the eyes of law but the learned trial Court has overlooked all these infirmities and as such the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the same are liable to be rejected out-rightly. As per the prosecution case, the driver of the truck after caus- ing the accident fled away from the spot. The registration certificate and route permit of the truck in question were produced by PW10 Davinder Singh, who was Manager of the Transport Company, before the Investigat- ing Officer which were taken into possession. He has categorically deposed that accused-petitioner was produced by him before the police and the truck in question was taken on supurdari by him on behalf of the company. In view of this the identity of the accused-petitioner as driver of the vehicle in question on the fateful day is duly proved by none else than the Manager of the Transport Company with which the accused-petitioner was working as a driver. Besides this, the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses Crl. Revision No. 1675 of 2010 (O&M) 4 have identified the accused-petitioner, being the same person, who had caused accident in question. Though, the petitioner has taken stand that he has been falsely implicated in this case but he has failed to produce any evi- dence on record to prove his innocence. No enmity whatsoever has been proved on account of which a false case has been allegedly planted against him. Empassing, it would not be out of place to mention here that the lives of four persons had been cut short, due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner. The vehicles involved in the accident in question were mechanically tested. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment reported as Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 585 and Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR 898, wherein it has been held that where test identification of the accused not held and if evidence in the Court is found to be reliable, then absence of corroboration by test identification cannot be held to be fa- tal to the prosecution case. Otherwise also, in the present case the identity of the accused-petitioner has been duly proved by Davinder Singh (PW10) and other prosecution witnesses who have categorically deposed that petitioner was driving the truck in question on the fateful day of accident. After going through the records, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Courts below which calls for interference by this Court. As a sequel of my above discussion, there is no merit in this re- vision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge April 4, 2011 Anand