In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.2112 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:29.9.2010 Tejinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide judgment and order dated 14.6.2008 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ – for short). He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year; besides, to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Besides, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 months and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In appeal the order of conviction and sentence has been upheld, which is assailed in the present petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the case relates to an accident in which the alleged Cr. Revision No.2112 of 2010 [2] offending bus of the petitioner is said to have hit the car of Sukhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh as a result of which both died. It is submitted with reference to the site plan (Ex.DA) recorded in the inquest proceedings that the bus was on its correct side i.e. on its left side when the car hit it. Therefore, it is submitted that the accident cannot be said to have been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is also contended that in the FIR the complainant Harnek Singh (PW-1) stated that the car of Sukhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh was going from Ludhiana to Mullanpur while when he appeared in Court he stated that the car was going from Mullanpur to Ludhiana. Therefore, there is a glaring inconsistency in the statement of the complainant Harnek Singh (PW-1). In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the site plan (Ex.DA) in the inquest proceedings was not put to the Investigating Officer SI Darshan Singh (PW-4) when he appeared in the witness box and who had drawn the said site plan. Besides, the site plan (Ex.P3/D) was proved by the Investigating Officer, which depicts the correct position regarding the place of accident. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the contradiction referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is inconsequential as it was never put to Harnek Singh (PW-1). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Harnek Singh (PW-1). It is stated that on 7.12.2000 he (Harnek Singh) (PW-1) and Balwant Singh resident of Mullanpur were going from Ludhiana to their Village Mullanpur on the G.T. road in their car. Ahead of them Sukhwinder Singh alias Nitta and Gurmeet Singh were going in their car. At about 7.00 p.m., when they reached near Dashmesh Pipe Cr. Revision No.2112 of 2010 [3] Factory, a bus of Gobind Bus Service driven by a gentleman came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn came on the wrong side and struck the car in which Sukhwinder Singh alias Nitta and Gurmeet Singh were travelling. As a result of the accident both the occupants of the car i.e. Sukhwinder Singh alias Nitta and Gurmeet Singh died. The petitioner was the driver of the offending bus and has been convicted by both the Courts below. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the site plan in the inquest proceedings (EX.DA), point-B is shown to be the place where the accident had occurred. It is submitted that the prosecution case is that complainant Harnek Singh (PW-1) in the Court during trial submitted that he was going from Mullanpur to Ludhiana. Therefore, point-B would be on the left side of the road if the offending bus was going from Mullanpur to Ludhiana. As such, it is submitted that it is the car of Sukhwinder Singh alias Nitta and Gurmeet Singh which came on the wrong side of the road and hit the bus. The said contention does appear attractive, however, when examined closely is not of much consequence. The site plan (Ex.DA) has been drawn by the Investigating Officer Darshan Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-4) in the inquest proceedings. Darshan Singh, SI (PW-4) when he appeared in the witness box proved the site plan (Ex.P.3/D). In the said site plan (Ex.P3/D) point-A is shown as the place where the accident had occurred. The same is on the left side of the road of the car, which was going from Ludhiana to Mullanpur. From the site plan (Ex.P3/D), it is apparent that the bus came on the wrong side and hit into the car of Sukhwinder Singh alias Nitta and Gurmeet Singh. In other words, the car of Sukhwinder Singh alias Nitta and Gurmeet Singh was going on its left side and the offending bus driven by the petitioner came on the wrong side and hit into the car. Darshan Singh, Cr. Revision No.2112 of 2010 [4] SI (PW-4) has not been cross-examined in this regard when he deposed in Court and neither was the site plan (Ex.DA) put to him or got confronted. It was, however, put to the complainant Harnek Singh (PW-1), when he appeared as a witness and it was exhibited as Ex.DA. It is merely mentioned by Harnek Singh (PW1) in his cross-examination that it is correct that Mark B in Ex.DA is on the left side. It has not been got clarified from Harnek Singh (PW1) as to on the left side of what is Mark B. In other words, it was liable to be ascertained as to whether Mark B in the site plan Ex.DA is on the left side of the bus and the car came on the wrong side and hit into it. Besides, Ex.DA is drawn in the inquest proceedings. The object of the inquest proceedings under Section 174 CrPC is to ascertain whether the person who has died had died an unnatural death or the death was under suspicious circumstances and, if so, what is the apparent cause of death. Moreover, as already noticed, the site plan (Ex.DA), in any case was not put to the Investigating Officer Darshan Singh, Sub Inspector (PW- 4). Even Harnek Singh complainant (PW1) was not cross-examined on the aspect that he in his statement before the police on the basis of which FIR was recorded stated that the car of Sukhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh was going from Ludhiana to Mullanpur, however, while appearing in Court he stated that the said car was going from Mullanpur to Ludhiana. The petitioner had a right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer Darshan Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-4) and also Harnek Singh complainant (PW1) but he did not avail this right. He did not put any question to the said witnesses to challenge their account. A party is liable to put its case in cross-examination and failure to cross on a particular point recorded in the examination in chief is deemed to be admitted and accepted by the party failing to put its case in the cross-examination and even deemed to be accepted as regards the Cr. Revision No.2112 of 2010 [5] statement made in the examination-in-chief and failure of the other party to cross on the particular point recorded in the examination-in- chief. However, the contradictions admittedly have not been put to Darshan Singh, SI (PW-4) or to Harnek Singh (PW1). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the criminal revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 29, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*