Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2005 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2005 Date of decision: December 06, 2010 Puran Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate with Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge made in this petition is to the judgment dated 10.6.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 4.11.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- under Section 338 IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 24.3.1998 at about 6.00 p.m. Resham Lal (PW2) and Dhanpat Rai (PW1) were coming on scooter bearing registration No.PB08-S-3903 from the Jalandhar on the left side of the road. In the meantime, the accused while driving his bus bearing registration NO.PB-12-B-9710, rashly and negligently, struck against the scooter, as a result thereof, both Resham Singh and Dhanpat Rai fell down and received injuries. The injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Adampur in a van. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a formal FIR was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C the accused was charged under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2005 -2- *** In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dhanpat Rai (PW1), Resham Lal (PW2), Surinder Kumar (PW3), Sanjiv Kumar (PW4), Pardeep Kumar (PW5), Nek Singh Gill (PW6), Dr. Shiv Dayal Goel (PW7), Dr. Rethish Issac Daniel (PW8) and C. Amarjit Singh (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. As regards the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is delay in lodging the FIR, I do not find any merit in the same. The case was registered on the statement of Pardeep Kumar (PW5) who deposed that as he had gone to Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) on the same night therefore, he could not lodge the report promptly. Dhanpat Rai (PW1) and Resham Lal (PW2) both injured in the case became unconscious after the accident as such the delay if any stands duly explained and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. No previous enmity or animus has been alleged or proved by the accused against the injured witnesses or the complainant, therefore, the question of false implication does not arise. The identity of the accused is also not doubtful as Dhanpat Rai (PW1), Resham Lal (PW2) and Pardeep Kumar (PW5) have categorically deposed that the accused was on the wheels of the offending bus at the time of accident. No suggestion was put to these witnesses that the accused was not the driver of the offending bus. They have withstood the test of cross examination and nothing fruitful could be elicited out of their cross-examination which could shatter the prosecution version. Further more, Nek Singh Traffic Manager, Punjab Roadways while appearing in the witness box as PW-6 has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, the offending bus was being driven by the accused. That apart, ASI Sanjiv Kumar (PW4) Investigating Officer of this case had visited the spot and found that the bus bearing registration No.PB-12-B-9710 and scooter bearing registration No.PB-08-S-3903 were Criminal Revision No. 1152 of 2005 -3- *** lying at the spot. The ocular version fits in with the medical evidence. Dr. Rethish Issac Danial (PW8) has testified that the patient record provides grade-IIIC- fracture (right) leg with closed fracture (right) fracture femur three days old with gangrenos changes big and treated above knee amputation (right) lower limb on 28.3.1998 below SA. Revision amputation was done on 31.3.1998 below GA. The link evidence is complete. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Both the courts below have returned the concurrent findings that the accused was guilty of the offence for which he was charged. In any case, the re- appreciation of the evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the accused while driving the bus rashly and negligently caused grievous injuries to Resham Lal and his right leg was amputated. He has been rendered handicapped due to amputation of his leg which cannot be compensated in any manner. As such, I do not deem it a fit case where any leniency on the quantum of sentence could be extended to him. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for compliance. December 06, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge