Criminal Revision No.2215 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2215 of 2002. Date of Decision : 15.2.2011. Kaka Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Sihdu, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated August 20th, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated October 24th, 2000 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 3 months 304-A IPC RI for 1 ½ years Rs.1000/- RI for 1 month 337 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.250/- RI for 15 days 338 IPC RI for 9 months Rs.500/- RI for 1 month The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On August 21st, 1997 Tarsem Singh (deceased) along with Leela Singh (PW-5), Shinder Singh (PW-6), Gurbachan Singh and Gulab Singh were traveling in tractor driven by Tarsem Singh. At about 6.30 p.m. when they were short of 200/300 yards to Bus Stand, Budlada, District Bathinda, a bus bearing registration No. PB-04B-9393 came at a fast speed driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner and dashed into the tractor. As a result Criminal Revision No.2215 of 2002 2 thereof, Tarsem Singh suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Leela Singh, Gulab Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Shinder Singh received multiple injuries. The driver of the bus managed his escape. All the injured were evacuated to Civil Hospital, Bathinda where they were medically examined by Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg (PW-4). On the dead body of Tarsem Singh, post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-3). On the statement of Leela, First Information Report (Exhibit PW-8/B) was registered against the petitioner. The accused was produced before Police by Sukhwinder Singh owner of the offending bus. He was arrested. 3. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for trial. 4. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses viz. Abhey Singh (PW-1), Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-2), Sukhdev Singh (PW-3), Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg (PW-4), Leela Singh (PW-5), Shinder Singh (PW-6), Dr. I.B. Aggarwal (PW-7) and Gurdev Singh (PW-8). 5. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below on the ground that neither the petitioner was arrested on the spot nor was any identification parade conducted so, it was not established that the petitioner was driving the offending bus at the time of accident. 7. The prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of Leela Singh (PW-5), Shinder Singh (PW-6). Both of them are the injured witnesses. They have spoken in one voice that on the fateful day, that is, August 21st, 1997, they were traveling in tractor driven by Tarsem Singh. The offending bus came at a fast speed driven by the petitioner in a zig zag manner and struck against the tractor. Apart from them, Gurbachan Singh and Gulab Singh also received injuries. Tarsem Singh died on the spot. They were cross-examined quite at length but nothing material could be elicited from as could shake their evidence. Their version is also supported by the photographs Criminal Revision No.2215 of 2002 3 (Exhibits P-20 to P-23) taken on the spot. The impact of the accident was so strong that the tractor was completely smashed. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not identified is not acceptable because Gurdev Singh-Investigator (PW-8) has deposed that owner of the bus brought the petitioner to Police station and he was accordingly arrested. If he was not driver of the offending bus, the owner would not have produced him before the Police. Had he been falsely implicated in this case, he would have moved the higher authorities but he did not . There is nothing on record to show that Police had any animus against the petitioner. 9. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgments of conviction are upheld. 10. The next limb of argument of the counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is first offender. He has already undergone actual sentence of 3 months and 22 days. He has faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 14 years so, the sentence imposed upon him be reduced. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factors, sentence of the petitioner is reduced from 1 ½ years to 1 year under Section 304-A IPC. However, rest of the sentences are kept intact. 12. The revision is accepted partly in the manner indicated above. 13. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.2.2011. SN