Criminal Revision No.2714 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2714 of 2010 Date of decision 22.12.2010. Sukhdev Singh ...... Petitioner. versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 10.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Amritsar vide which the appeal preferred by the accused- Sukhdev Singh against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar was dismissed. Criminal Revision No.2714 of 2010 2 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2000 at about 10.00a.m., complainant Sunil Kumar Singh got recorded his statement before ASI Lakha Singh, Incharge Police Post Majitha Road bye- pass Chowk that he is studying in the University and his father was working as Teacher in Government School Dhar Khurd and he was deputed in University Campus. At about 10.00 a.m, he along with Kulwant Singh son of Piara Singh was going on his scooter while his father was going ahead of them at a distance of about 10/12 yards on his motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-02- 3- 9250 towards University. He and Kulwant Singh followed his father. Then a truck bearing registration No. PB -02 -L -9877 came from the side of Milk Plant being driven at a very high speed and without blowing horn rashly and negligently and ran over his father. Head of his father was badly injured and he died at the spot. Thereafter, the said truck was also struck against a rickshaw puller namely Kartar Singh injuring him badly. The truck was being driven by Sukhdev Singh, who ran away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the said statement of the complainant, the present case was registered. The accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The post mortem examination was also got conducted. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were supplied to him free of costs. On finding a prima facie case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC, the accused was charge sheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No.2714 of 2010 3 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Onkar Nath, Clerk as PW-1, Dr.Amarjit Singh as PW-2, Sunil Kumar Singh complainant as PW-3, Jang Bahadur as PW-4, HC Rajinder Singh as PW-5, Kulwant Singh as PW-6, LC Gurmej Singh as PW-7, ASI Lakha Singh as (PW-8) and Kartar Singh (PW-9) and closed the evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to him to which he pleaded his innocence and false implication. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 337 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 31.1.2008 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner-accused had preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10.09.2010 dismissed the appeal.\ Criminal Revision No.2714 of 2010 4 Still feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has relied upon testimony of three witneses namely Sunil Kumar Singh complainant as PW-3, Kulwant Singh as PW-6 and Kartar Singh PW-9. Kartar Singh PW-9 during cross- examination has stated that he has not seen the driver of the offending vehicle. Both the Courts below have relied upon the testimony of Sunil Kumar Singh PW-3 and Kulwant Singh PW-6, who are interested witnesses and near relatives of deceased. I have considered the submission made by both the besides and have gone through the records of the case. Mere fact that Kartar Singh PW-9 in the cross-examination has stated that he has not seen the driver, does not create dent in the prosecution version. Sunil Kumar Singh PW-3 and Kulwant Singh PW-6 have categorically proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of interested and relatives cannot be thrown away outrightly. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the accused. Sunil Kumar Singh PW-3 and Kulwant Singh PW-6 have been cross-examined at length but nothing could be found to shatter their sworn testimony. No other point has been raised by either side. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same stands dismissed. Criminal Revision No.2714 of 2010 5 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 22, 2010. sv.