Crl.R.No.619/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.619/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 12.7.2010. Kulwant Singh ....................Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Devinder Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J. Petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC, challenging (i) the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, vide which the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279,337 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo- RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 279/337 IPC; and one year RI and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC- and (ii) order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby while upholding the convictions of the petitioner under Sections 279,337 and 304-A IPC, only sentence qua offence punishable under section 304-A IPC was reduced from RI for one year to 9 months. Briefly noticed, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 9.12.2001, due to his rash negligent driving of bus no. PB-12- Crl.R.No.619/2010(O&M) 2 B-7671, the said bus struck against a Tahli tree, resulting in the death of one Gomti wife of Chanderpal and her daughter Lachmi. In the said accident even 8/9 passengers travelling in the said bus also received injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, Kurali. FIR No.131 dated 9.12.2001 under Sections 279,337,338 and 304-A IPC was registered at PS Kurali, on the statement of HC Gurdev Singh, who was on general duty. On completion of investigation charges were framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded in which also he refuted the prosecution allegations and arrayed one Gurpreet Singh alleging that the latter handed over the ill fated vehicle to the petitioner after fitting the broken welded spring belt. However, petitioner led no evidence in his defence. On the basis of material available on record, trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed hereinabove and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge but with modification in sentence imposed under Section 304-A IPC. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the identification of the accused Kulwant Singh was not established and merely on the basis of statement of complainant HC Gurdev Singh petitioner could not be held guilty. I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel. Complainant HC Gurdev Singh is an official witness. It is Crl.R.No.619/2010(O&M) 3 not the case of the petitioner that he has any ill will against him. Further, HC Gurdev Singh in his statement has clearly stated that on the fateful day he was on patrolling duty and at about 2.30 p.m., when he alongwith Constable Baldev Raj was going from Village Barodi to Kurali, then one private bus bearing registration No.PB-12B-7671 driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came and struck against Tahli tree standing on the side of the road in the ditches and thereafter turned turtle, resulting in the death of Gaumti and her daughter Lachmi and injuries to 8/9 passengers travelling in the said bus. Complainant HC Gurdev Singh, during his cross examination also identified the petitioner, who was present in Court, though he wrongly disclosed his name as Gurpreet Singh. The occurrence took place on 9.12.2002 while the cross examination was conducted on 16.1.2006. Such minor discrepancy in describing the name of petitioner is natural. Besides complainant HC Gurdev Singh, the petitioner was also identified as driver of the ill fated bus by PW3 and PW6, who were travelling in the said bus. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident had occurred due to technical fault as the right side belt (kamani) of the offending vehicle was a repaired one (welded). I do not find any force in this submission as well. If the bus was not fit/road worthy, then petitioner, at the first instance should not have driven it and secondly, even if had he been put on duty on that Crl.R.No.619/2010(O&M) 4 bus, he should have driven the bus cautiously and at a low speed when he already knew that its belt (kamani) was repaired one. No fault can be found with the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. Dismissed. 12.7.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge