Crl. Revision No. 1200 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1200 of 2008 Date of Decision:May 27, 2009 Mange Ram ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. S.S.Narula,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab *** SABINA, J. Mange Ram -petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 279/304-A/337,338/427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) vide judgment dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. Vide order of even dated passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous Crl. Revision No. 1200 of 2008 -2- imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 337 IPC, sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1500/- for offence under Section 427 IPC Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 3.7.2008, dismissed the appeal with modification in sentence under Section 304-A from rigorous imprisonment from two years to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and from rigorous imprisonment from one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 338 and 427 IPC. Other sentences as awarded by the trail court were upheld. Hence the present revision petition. Brief facts of the case as noticed by the appellate court in para 2 of its judgment are as under:- “Brief facts of the prosecution case were that on 28.1.2000 at about 6.00 p.m. Complainant Phuman Singh resident of village Hambowal, a Mason by profession was returning home along with his brother on their respective cycles from the work of construction that was going on at Gurudwara Hambowal. When they reached little ahead of the bridge of Ramidi, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. CH-01-Z-9280 came from behind, which was being driven by accused Mange Ram rashly and negligently. Resultantly, the said offending vehicle hit the cycle of his deceased brother Balkar Singh, who fell down due to impact and received a head injury causing his death instantly. After hitting deceased's cycle, it struck a Maruti Van coming Crl. Revision No. 1200 of 2008 -3- from opposite side as it was turned sharply by the accused Sumo driver. The said van also got damaged and the 3/ 4 sikh gentlemen sitting in that Van also received serious injuries. The said Sumo then got lost its control and fell into the roadside ditches on the northern side. The accused taking advantage of dark fled from the spot and the injured were taken to hospital for the treatment as the road was busy and with the help of people gathered there. The FIR was, therefore, got registered on the basis of statement of complainant Phuman Singh that was recorded by ASI Jagjit Singh, who was present along with other police officials at a crossing of Subhanput in connection of patrolling. The investigations were carried out by the said ASI Jagjit Singh, who then visited the spot and prepared the visual site plan of the place of occurrence with its correct marginal notes. The vehicles as well as cycle were taken into possession vide separate seizure memo. The blood stained clothes of Balkar Singh deceased were also taken into possession by the police. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the Court for trial.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Petitioner was not apprehended at the spot. No identification parade was got conducted. In fact, the story put forth by the prosecution was not believable as the left sides of Maruti Van and Tata Sumo in question had been damaged. Learned State counsel, on the hand has supported the judgment Crl. Revision No. 1200 of 2008 -4- of the Courts below. In the present case, accident had taken place at about 6 P.M. on 28.1.2000. Petitioner was driving the Tata Sumo in question whereas the deceased was travelling on his by-cycle. As per the testimony of the eye witnesses, petitioner struck against the by-cycle of the deceased from behind and thereafter he struck against the Maruti van. As a result of this Balkar Singh died at the spot. Complainant and eye witnesses had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. Had the driver of the Maruti van been negligent, the complainant in normal circumstances would have initiated criminal proceedings against the driver of the van. Complainant and the eye witnesses were cross examined at length but their testimony with regard to the manner of accident could not be shaken. Statements of the complainant and eye witnesses being natural, inspire confidence. The vehicle driven by the petitioner was recovered from the spot. The complainant as well as the eye witnesses have duly identified the petitioner while appearing in the witness box. As per the mechanical test report Ex. PN with regard to the Maruti van in question, the driver side of the same from front side was damaged. As per mechanical test report Ex. PO, the left side of Tata Sumo was damaged. Hence there is no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that left sides of both the vehicles were damaged. Hence, the impugned judgment calls for no interference. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 27 , 2009 PARAMJIT