Crl. Revision No. 1688 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 1688 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.8.2011. Krishan Kumar .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner had faced trial under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 427 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 245 dated 16.7.2001 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338, 427 IPC. The said conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, qua Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC vide judgment dated 26.7.2011. Hence, the present petition by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. The courts below had erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of Crl. Revision No. 1688 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - the statement of the complainant Ram Parshad. The case of the complainant in brief was that he was engaged in supply of cold drinks to different shops. He had maintained a three-wheeler bearing No. PB-13H-3207 for the said purpose and had employed Shankar Parmanik as a driver of the three-wheeler. Ghansham Kumar was engaged as a helper. On 16.7.2001, when the driver and the helper were returning back after supplying the cold drinks, at about 5.30 P.M. the accused came driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HR-37A-1784 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the three wheeler from behind. As a result of this, driver as well as helper suffered injuries. Three- wheeler was also badly damaged. The complainant was following the three wheeler on a scooter and had, thus, seen the entire occurrence. The driver of the three-wheeler died on account of injuries, suffered by him. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant as PW-1. The said witness deposed as per the prosecution story. The accused, who was driving the bus at the time of accident, had struck against the three-wheeler from behind. The accused had fled away from the spot after causing accident and his name was disclosed by the conductor of the bus to the complainant. PW-7 Manjit Singh, Duty Clerk deposed that the appellant was on duty on the bus in question on the date of accident. Although, the injured was not examined as a witness during trial but since the complainant had duly supported the prosecution case, the courts below rightly held that the non- examination of the injured was not fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 is liable to be upheld. Since, the injured had failed to appear in the witness box, learned appellate court rightly held Crl. Revision No. 1688 of 2011 (O&M) -3 - that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 337, 338 IPC was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the courts below. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 02, 2011 Gurpreet