Criminal Revision No.453 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.453 of 2007 Date of decision: 13.01.2009 Mohinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate, Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate and Mr.Vaneet Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Patiala convicting the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months under Section 304-A IPC and three months under Section 279 IPC, affirming the judgment dated 9.9.2003 Criminal Revision No.453 of 2007 2 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment dated 14.2.2007, is reproduced herein below:- “This case was registered on the statement Ex.PA of Vinod Kumar through FIR Ex.PA/2. It was reported by the complainant that he was working as fitter mechanic and shishupal was also working with him in Diesel Components Works, Patiala. On 8.4.2001, he was going on scooter No.PB-11 Q-1167 and Shishupal was pillion rider. He was going to village Rauni, as he was having problem in his disk. He was going towards Rauni village Nabha. At about, 9.20 a.m. when they reached near red light of gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, they stopped there. A bus of PRTC bearing registration No.PB-11C-9415 came from their behind. It was being driven by a Sikh gentleman having white beared. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. He did not blow any horn and struck the same with the scotter. Both fell down on the ground and sustained injuries but the complainant sustained injuries on his foot, left shoulder and passerby removed them from Criminal Revision No.453 of 2007 3 the front of the Bus and they took them to DCW Hospital, Patiala, and from there, doctor referred Shishupal to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, where he died. The name of the driver was Mohinder Singh accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. There was no material on record to suggest that the accident in question had been caused by the petitioner. The identity of the petitioner was, thus, not established in this case. The mechanic report did not show any damage to the scooter on the rear side and injuries on the person of deceased Shishupal were found on the lateral aspect of left side of chest, whereas, there were no injuries on the back of the deceased. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the bus in question was recovered from the place of accident. As per the duty roster, the petitioner was attached with the bus in question. The eye witness examined by the prosecution, had duly supported the prosecution case. The accident in question had occurred on 8.4.2001. As per the duty roster Ex.PW-5/A, bus No.PB-11C-9415 was to be driven by driver Mohinder Singh on 8.4.2001. The said duty roster has been prepared by the Duty Inspector. The statement Criminal Revision No.453 of 2007 4 of Duty Clerk (PW-5) in his cross-examination that it was correct that duty roster Ex.PW-5-A was not issued by a competent authority, cannot be relied upon as the duty roster in question duly bears the signatures of Duty Inspector, PRTC Patiala. Hence, the duty roster Ex.PW-5/A cannot be brushed aside. As per Ex.PW-5/B, the petitioner was an employee of Pepsu Roadways, Patiala Depot. PW-1 Vinod Kumar has duly proved the manner of accident. As per the said witness, the bus had struck against the scooter from behind. The said witness has no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. In the photographs proved on record, the scooter is seen lying under the bus. From this, it is evident that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, which had resulted in the death of Shishupal, who was pillion rider on the scooter in question. There is no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments of the Courts below are liable to be upheld. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 13, 2009 anita