IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 725 of 2004 Date of decision: November 02, 2010 Jeeta Singh alias Amarjit .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Ranjana Salaria, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 14.2.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 10.5.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304- A IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that the complainant Kulwant Singh disclosed that on 10.5.2000 he was posted as AGIII at Unit 4 in FCI Department, Barnala and goods train was being loaded with wheat. For loading the same, Assistant Manager FCI, Depot Barnala deputed officials for Unit No.3, 4 and 5. Satpal Verma A.G. II (D) was deputed for supervision. Swarn Singh AGIII (D) and Satnam Singh, AG III (D) were also on duty with him. After getting certain bogies loaded they were standing at the railway plinth near the railway over bridge, in the meantime, the accused, while driving truck bearing registration No. RNG-1847 rashly and negligently came and in order to save other trucks already standing there for unloading swerved his truck and struck against Satpal Verma. As a result thereof, Satpal Vema fell down and became unconscious. The accused after leaving the truck at the spot fled away. The injured was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and case was Criminal Revision No. 725 of 2004 -2- *** investigated and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Section 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW1), Satnam Singh (PW2), Kulwant Singh(PW3), Harbans Singh Mechanic (PW4), HC Harjinder Singh (PW5), SI Harbans Singh (PW6), Gian Chand Assistant Manager (PW7), Subhash Kumar Goods Supervisor (PW8) (wrongly mentioned as PW7) and Baldev Singh (PW9) (wrongly mentioned as PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Sukhdev Singh (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the identity of the accused, that he was the driver of the offending truck, has not been established on the record and that presence of Satnam Singh (PW2) and Kulwant Singh (PW3) at the place of occurrence is doubtful. Having pondered over the arguments, it may be observed that presence of Satnam Singh (PW2) and Kulwant Singh (PW3) is very much established on the record. They being the officials of FCI were present at the plinth of the railway station and supervising the loading of the special train. They have categorically stated that a special train was being loaded and in the meantime the accused while driving truck, bearing registration No.RNG 1847, rashly and negligently struck against Satpal Verma. They have consistently stated that they had seen the accused driving the offending vehicle as such the question of mistaken identity does not arise. They have withstood the test of cross examination and despite lengthy cross examination nothing could be elicited which could cause dent in the prosecution version. That apart, Baldev Singh (PW8) owner of the offending truck has categorically deposed that he had employed the accused as driver of the aforesaid truck and on the day of occurrence, his truck was Criminal Revision No. 725 of 2004 -3- *** deployed at the Railway Station Barnala where a special train was to be loaded. As such, no iota of doubt remains in my mind that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle on the day of occurrence. The evidence appearance to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out so as to render the judgment as invalid. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the courts below at the revisional stage. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for compliance. Ms. Ranjana Salaria, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. November 02, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge