IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2882 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 06, 2011 Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was driving a bus, which was proceeding from Nabha to Patiala. On a turning in the vicinity of Rohti Canal Bridge, the bus struck against a Motorcycle coming from opposite direction. Gurdev Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur, who were riding Motorcycle, fell down and suffered serious injuries. Both were shifted to Civil Hospital, Nabha in an Ambulance. Their condition being serious, they were referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Thereafter Surjit Kaur was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh and ultimately she succumbed to her injuries on 2.12.2008. FIR was registered against the petitioner initially under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. After the death of Surjit Kaur, offence under Section 304-A IPC was added. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a turning and so the accident took place, which cannot be due to the fault of the bus driver. Counsel further contends that there were no skid marks. It is a case where the bus driver had hit the bus into the Motorcycle coming from the opposite side. Law would expect from the heavy vehicle driver of the bus to slow down and apply brakes at Criminal Revision No.2882 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : the turning. This is expected as part of care and caution from a heavy vehicle driver. The driver was expected to slow down on the turning to avoid accident of this nature. The submission that the injured were shifted to the Hospital by Head Constable, who had also prepared the sketch plan but was not examined as a witness to challenge the verdict, in my view, would not have any material affect on the final outcome. A person, who had just shifted the injured to the Hospital or had prepared a sketch can not be a material witness. It is also not pleaded as to how his non-examination has caused any prejudice to the defence or that he was to give any evidence which could have gone in favour of the petitioner, for which any adverse interference is to be drawn. The eye-witness account is given by the husband, who was driving Motorcycle and was injured in the same accident. In this view of the matter, no case for interference in the finding is made out. The revision petition is without merits and is dismissed. December 06, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE