Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2002 Date of Decision: 26.3.2010 Om Parkash …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by Om Parkash son of Ram Sarup feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.1.2001 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. He was held guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2002 2 The impugned judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, was challenged in an appeal filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The Appellate Court had observed that there was no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court, therefore, while upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence awarded to the petitioner, it dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.3.2002. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Balwinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, along with other police officials, was present at Bus Stand Lalru where Bahadur Singh son of Piara Singh appeared and got recorded his statement. He stated that he along with Mewa Singh, brother-in-law and daughter Balwinder Kaur, aged about nine years, had come to Lalru Mandi. When they reached just ahead of I.T.I. Chowk Lalru, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-05-A-5831 came from Chandigarh side at a very high speed without blowing any horn, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit Balwinder Kaur, who died at the spot. The offending bus was driven by the present petitioner. The above said FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses, namely Krishan Singh, Photographer, as PW.1, Lok Nath, Junior Auditor, Haryana Roadways as PW.2, Jagtar Singh, Inspector, Haryana Roadways, as PW.3, Bahadur Singh, complainant, as PW.4, Mewa Singh, an eye witness, as PW.5, Raj Kumar, Mechanic, Haryana Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2002 3 Roadways, as PW.6, Dr. Munish Trehan as PW.7 and Balwinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, as PW.8. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.3 Bahadur Singh and PW.4 Mewa Singh, both eye witnesses. Their testimonies were corroborated by PW.6 Raj Kumar, Mechanic, Haryana Roadways. Both the Courts below, while determining the guilt of the petitioner, had taken into consideration the testimony of Jagtar Singh, Inspector, Haryana Roadways, who appeared as PW.3. This witness stated that on the day of occurrence, the bus which had caused the accident was driven by accused Om Parkash. Therefore, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that as per the records maintained by the employer, the petitioner was the driver of the offending bus and this fact has been rightly taken into consideration by both the Courts below to determine the identity of the petitioner. The testimony of the official of the employer of the petitioner had corroborated the testimonies of two eye witnesses, namely PW.3 Bahadur Singh and PW.4 Mewa Singh. Furthermore, duty roster was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW.8/F. Furthermore, the trial Court observed as under:- “The factum of rash and negligent driving has been categorically proved by Bahadur Singh complainant through his consistent and truthful testimony as PW.4 and has been fully supported by eye witness Mewa Singh PW.5”. This finding has been further affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, which had observed as under:- Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2002 4 “11.....The name of the driver came to be known as Om Parkash. PWS.4 has left Mewa Singh near the dead body of Balwinder Kaur and himself went to lodge the complaint with the police and his statement Ex.PD was recorded, on which he has identified his signatures before the trial Magistrate. This witness has also identified the accused present in the Court. 12. The version of the prosecution pertaining to the occurrence was corroborated by other witnesses like Mewa Singh and nothing worth-while could be elicited during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses so as to falsify or demolish the version proved by the prosecution. The witnesses of the prosecution were very clear in stating the factum of the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by appellant Om Parkash when he caused the accident, in which Balwinder Kaur ultimately died because of the injuries sustained by her”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis to say that both PW.3 Bahadur Singh and PW.4 Mewa Singh, are discrepant in their testimonies. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel are not very material. These discrepancies are too minor to discard the testimony of witnesses. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate or do re-appraisal of the Criminal Revision No. 613 of 2002 5 evidence. Re-evaluation of the evidence is not a function of the revisional Court. Learned counsel has failed to point out any infirmity or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Furthermore, learned counsel has failed to dislodge the testimony of PW.3 Jagtar Singh, Inspector, Haryana Roadways, who as an official of the employer of the petitioner has proved on record that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner was driver of the offending bus. The duty roster produced on the record also foreclose the option for the learned counsel for the petitioner to urge for his acquittal. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has spelt mitigating circumstances, to urge that in the present case, occurrence pertains to the year 1994. The petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner was aged about 42 years. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the litigation, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, awarded to the petitioner, is reduced to that of eight months. Ordered accordingly. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 26, 2010 “DK”