In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1938 of 2002 Date of decision: March 24, 2009 Gurmukh Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr.Akshey Goel, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 10.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Gurmukh Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 8.6.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, convicting and sentencing him to undergo for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. The factual matrix of the case is that on 12.5.1997 at about 6.00 p.m. complainant Satnam Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant'), along with his brother Balwinder Singh and uncle Chetan Singh was returning from village Kahma. Balwinder Singh was going ahead of him on scooter bearing registration No.PB08-Q- 4951, whereas, the complainant with Chetan Singh were on different scooter. In the meantime, truck bearing registration No.PB-12-B-1463 came rashly and negligently from the Phagwara side and struck against the scooter of Balwinder Singh, as a sequel of which Balwinder Singh suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. The petitioner was arrested. Completion of the Crl. Revision No. 1938 of 2002 -2- *** investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined C. Surinder Pal (PW1), C. Rajeshwar Dutt (PW2), Atma Ram (PW3), Satnam Singh (PW4), Chetan Singh (PW5), Dr. G.S. Virdi (PW6), C. Raman Kumar (PW7), SI Ranjit Singh (PW8), Amarjit Kaur (PW9) and Chander Mohan (PW10). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution and there are no such discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses which may effect the substratum of the case. Since no identification parade was conducted, therefore, the case could be said to be of doubtful identity. Having examined the impugned judgment, it may be observed that Satnam Singh complainant (PW4) and Chetan Singh eye witness (PW5) have categorically deposed that in the morning of 12.5.1997 they had gone to village Kahma and in the evening when they were returning to their village, Balwinder Singh was going ahead of them on separate scooter. In the meantime one truck driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against Balwinder Singh who died at the spot. There is no denying a fact that though identification parade was not conducted, yet the complainant as well as the eye witness who were following the deceased Balwinder Singh on a separate scooter, had seen the petitioner when he had stopped the truck at some distance after the accident. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not lead any plausible defence to prove that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As regards the contention that no independent witness was joined, it may be observed that the complainant as well as the eye witness are quite consistent in their statements. No doubt, they are related to the Crl. Revision No. 1938 of 2002 -3- *** deceased but their testimonies being quite consistent and free from any blemish cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. As regards the discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that they are minor in nature and do not effect the substratum of the case. Such minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statement of the truthful witnesses. As a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about three months out of the substantive sentence therefore, he being the first offender may be extended benefit of proabation. Having examined the impugned judgment and records of the case, it may be observed that the petitioner while driving the truck rashly and negligently caused accident and took life of a person, and thereafter fled away from the spot. He did not make efforts to take the injured to the hospital for medical treatment. As such, no leniency could be extended to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. March 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge