Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 Date of decision. March 24, 2008 Randhir Singh son of Udmi Ram resident of village Kasni, P.S. Behal Jhupa, District Bhiwani. ....... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: None for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.1993, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it dismissed the appeal, against the judgment of conviction dated 16.11.1991, and the order of sentence dated 18.11.1991, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, in FIR No. 65 dated 8.3.1984, under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter called as 'the IPC' ), registered at Police Station Sadar Panipat, vide which the Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 2 accused (herein petitioner) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offences punishable under Sections 279 IPC and 337 IPC, further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two months, for the offence, punishable under Section 338 IPC, with a further direction that if the fine was paid, then a sum of Rs.800/- out of the same, shall be paid to Surinder Singh, PW1 and a sum of Rs.200/-, shall be paid to Laxmi Dhar, PW2, injured. The substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2 The facts, in brief, are that on 08.03.1994 at about 6.30 AM, a bus of Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot bearing registration No. PLG-4005, had started from Delhi for Pathankot. Surinder Singh, PW1, was driving the bus while Raj Kumar, was the Conductor thereof. At about 8.45 AM, as soon as, the bus crossed village Babarpur, tanker bearing registration No. DHI-3879, came from the opposite side, which was being driven by the revision- petitioner/accused. He could not control the said tanker, which rammed into the Punjab Roadways Bus aforesaid, towards driver's side, as a result whereof, the driver of the said bus and the passengers sustained injuries. The injured Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 3 were removed to Civil Hospital, Panipat. On receipt of information, from the said hospital, Assistant Sub Inspector Krishan Chand, PW, rushed to the said hospital and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor, he recorded the statement of Raj Kumar, Ex.PW5/B. It was stated by him that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tanker by the revision- petitioner/accused. The case was registered against the revision-petitioner/accused. He was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279, 337 and 338, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4.. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Surinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, the driver of Punjab Roadways Bus, (PW-1), Lakshmi Dhar son of Nathu Ram, (PW-2), Jai Narain Fitter, (PW-3), Prem Sagar, Photographer, (PW-4), Dr. O.P. Gogia, Radiologist, (PW5), Assistant Sub Inspector Krishan Chand, ( PW6 ), and Dr. Surinder Kumar, (PW7). Thereafter, the Addl. P. P. for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused. 6. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, vide its judgment of conviction dated 16.11.1991 and the order of sentence dated 18.11.1991, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the revision- petitioner/accused, filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide judgment dated 13.10.1993. 8. Still dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed. 9. None appeared, on behalf of the revision- petitioner despite due notice. 10. I have heard Sh. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 11. The first question that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the accident took place, on account of rash or negligent driving of the tanker by the revision- petitioner/accused or not. The driver of the bus namely Surinder Kumar, PW1, in clear-cut terms, stated that the Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 5 driver of the tanker drove the same to the wrong side of the road, and struck the same against the bus, as a result whereof, his right leg was fractured. He further stated that he also sustained injuries on other parts of his body. No doubt a suggestion was put to him, during the course of cross-examination that the accident did not take place, on account of the rash or negligent act of the driver, of the tanker. He denied the same. Another suggestion was also put to him, that the accident took place as the driver of the tanker, with a view to save the rickshaw puller, turned the tanker towards right side. This suggestion was also denied by him. Lakshmi Dhar son of Nathu Ram, (PW-2), during the course of his evidence, stated that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tanker, as a result whereof, they sustained injuries. The ocular evidence was duly corroborated by the medical evidence, in the shape of the statements, of Dr. O.P. Gogia, Radiologist, who examined Surinder Singh, PW1, and found fracture of tibula bone, second matatarcel and medial cuneiform of the right foot and of fibula right side, and Dr. Surinder Kumar, who medico-legally examined Laxman Dass son of Nathu Ram and Lakshmi Dhar and found as many as six injuries, on their person. The mere fact that a suggestion was put by the Counsel for the accused to Dr. Surinder Kumar, PW, that the accident took place, as the Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 6 driver of the tanker wanted to save the rickshaw puller and thus he turned the tanker to the right side, did not prove that he was neither rash or negligent. Suggestions do not constitute evidence. From the substantive evidence, it was thus proved that the accident took place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of tanker by the driver i.e. Revision-petitioner. 12. The identity of the driver of the tanker was also not disputed. A perusal of the cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, clearly goes to reveal that the case of the accused was to the effect that the accident took place, as he wanted to save the rickshaw puller and, as such, turned the tanker towards right side. It means that he admitted that he was driving the tanker, at the relevant time, which struck against the bus, but only took up the plea that he was neither rash nor negligent in driving the same. In these circumstances, the ground taken up by the revision-petitioner, in the revision petition, that his identity, was not established, as driver of the tanker, is without any substance. No suggestion was put to the witnesses, by the Counsel for the accused, that the accused was not driving the tanker. The Courts below were therefore, right in holding that the identity of the accused, as driver of the tanker, which struck against the bus, resulting into injuries on the passengers and driver of the same, stood duly proved. Crl. Revn. No. 698 of 1993 7 Since there was no dispute, with regard to the identity of the driver of the tanker, the question of holding test identification parade, did not at all arise. 13. The judgment of the trial Court as also of the Appellate Court, have been carefully perused. The concurrent findings of both these courts, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. There is nothing, on record, to show that the same are, in any way perverse or illegal. Under these circumstances, the same are liable to be up-held. 14. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 16.11.1991, the order of sentence dated 18.11.1991, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment dated 13.10.1993, rendered by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal of the accused, are up-held. In case, the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, shall take necessary steps for complying with the judgment of this Court, with due promptitude. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE March 24, 2008 dinesh