Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 01, 2011 Kabal Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: None for the petitioner Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner-accused, Kabal Singh, has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 12.7.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 18.9.2000 passed by JMIC, Barnala, vide which the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced as under:- Sr.N o. Under Section Sentence awarded Fine 1. 279 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months `500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 2. 337 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months `500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 3. 304-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years `2000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2005 -2- It was on the statement of Gore Lal, complainant, PW-1, Ex. PA, that the FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. He narrated therein that on 16.5.1997, he was being brought from Bathinda to CMC, Ludhiana, for his medical check up by his wife, Kailash Rani, father–in-law, Vir Bhan, nephew Suresh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar, in a Matador bearing Registration No. DL 5CA 1927, which was being driven by Sukhdev Singh. When they had covered some distance from bus stand, Mehal Kalan, the accused came driving truck, bearing Registration No. PB 10Y 9787, from the opposite side, at very fast speed on the wrong side of the road and struck the same in their Matador. The Matador was totally smashed and all the occupiers thereof received the injuries. Vir Bhan and Sukhdev died at the spot whereas the other injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Mehal Kalan, for their treatment. The investigation was conducted by ASI Nazir Singh, PW- 10, who went to the place of accident and prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PJ with correct marginal notes. He prepared the inquest reports in respect of the dead bodies of Vir Bhan and Sukhdev Singh, Ex. PK and PL, respectively, and sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination. The injured were medically examined by Dr. Charanjiv Singh Gill, PW-9, who found three injuries each on the persons Suresh Kumar and Gora Lal and one injury on the person of Mahesh Kumar. The autopsy on the dead body of Vir Bhan, deceased, was performed by Dr. Triloki Nath, PW-3, who found five ante mortem injuries on the dead body and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to the vital organ (brain) which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The autopsy on the dead body of Sukhdev Singh was performed by Dr. Suresh Kumar, PW-4, who found 14 ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2005 -3- cumulative effect of those injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The vehicles involved in the accident were taken into possession. On 22.5.1997, the ASI received information that Suresh Kumar had died in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On the receipt of that information, he went to that place and prepared the inquest report, Ex. PL, in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination, which was performed by Dr. Gagan Deep Singh, PW-8, who found 10 ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to those multiple injuries. The vehicles, so involved in the accident, were got mechanically tested from Harbans Singh, PW-6, who gave his reports Ex. PW6/A and PW6/B. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and after completion thereof, the challan was put in before JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A and 337 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Gora Lal, PW-1. Mahesh Kumar, PW-2, Dr. Tirloki Nath, PW-3, Dr. Suresh Kumar, PW-4, Parveen Kumar and Palwinder Singh ASI, PW-5, Harbans Singh, PW-6, Kulwant Singh, PW-7, Dr. Gagan Deep Singh, PW-8, Dr. Charanjiv Singh Gill , PW-9 and Nazir Singh ASI, PW- 10. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his false implication. He stated that no such accident was caused by him. He was called upon to enter on his defence. He examined Joginder Singh, DW-1 in his defence evidence. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. To secure the Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2005 -4- presence of the petitioner, bailable warrants were issued against him but those could not be executed for want of his correct address. This revision petition is being decided on merits after going through the records of the case with the help of the State counsel. The first ground taken up in the revision is that Gora Lal, PW-1 and Mahesh Kumar, PW-2 were sitting on the back seat of the Matador and as such they could not have seen as to whether the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner. They are related to the deceased and as such were interested witnesses. After having gone through the statements of both these witnesses, it has been found by this Court that there is nothing in their statements on the basis of which it may be held that they were not in a position to witness this accident while sitting on the back seat of the Matador. No such fact was elicited during their cross examination on the basis of which it can be held that while sitting in the vehicle they were not in a position to witness this accident or the manner in which the truck was being driven before the accident took place. They may be related to the deceased but that itself is not a ground for disbelieving them. They had also received injuries in this very accident and their presence in the Matador cannot be disputed. The statement of a related witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. Both of them made categorical statements that it was the accused, who was driving the truck rashly and negligently and struck the same in their Matador which was going on the left side of the road. The second ground taken up in the revision petition is that the Mechanic Harbans Singh, PW-6, who mechanically tested these vehicles, had found that it was the right side of the truck which was found damaged, which itself shows that it was the Matador which was struck in the same. The mechanic might have found the right side of the truck damanged but in view of Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2005 -5- the direct evidence produced by the prosecution, no weight can be given to that contention of the accused. In this accident, the Matador was totally smashed. Keeping in view the height of the truck, as compared to the Matador, it cannot be held that merely on the ground that the right side of the truck was found to have been damaged, that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the Matador. The last ground taken up in the revision petition is that the trial court and the appellate court have not taken into consideration the statement of Joginder Singh, DW-1, who made his statement that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the Matador and that this witness himself witnessed this accident as he was coming in the other truck. As per the statement of that witness, the truck of the accused was coming on the back side of his truck. In that eventuality, he could not have seen the manner in which the accident took place, as while driving on the road, he was supposed to look on the front side and not on the back side. This defence evidence produced by the accused, fails to create any dent in the evidence produced by the prosecution. No ground is found for holding that the findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court are perverse or illegal or are the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. The accused be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 01, 2011 PARAMJIT