Criminal Revision No.2239 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2239 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2009 Manjit Singh @ Neeta ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2006 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC ; he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 338 IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- Criminal Revision No.2239 of 2008 (O&M) 2 under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.10.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The facts of the case as unfolded by the records, are that the statement of Atma Singh s/o Chuhar Singh was recorded by the police on 12.12.2001. As per statement of Atma Singh s/o Chuhar Singh, the prosecution version is that on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 12.12.2001 Atma Singh s/o Chuhar Singh along with his brother Gurcharan Singh s/o Sucha Singh were going on their scooter No.PB-10-J-0673 towards Samrala. The scooter was driven by Gurcharan Singh and Atma Singh was riding on the pillion seat. A little ahead of them, Baljinder Singh @ Happy r/o Poonia and Kulwinder Singh s/o Kesar Singh also resident of village Poonia were going towards Samrala on Scooter No.PB-10X-6911. The said scooter was driven by Kulwinder Singh, whereas, Baljinder Singh was on the pillion seat. At about 7.30 p.m. when they reached in front of the office of the Municipal Council, Machhiwara Road, Samrala, a red Criminal Revision No.2239 of 2008 (O&M) 3 coloured jeep came from behind at a very high speed. After overtaking the scooter being driven by Gurcharan Singh, it hit into the scooter on which Baljinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh were going . As a result of the accident Baljinder Singh @ Happy who was sitting on the pillion seat received head injuries and Kulwinder Singh also received several injuries. The jeep turned turtled when the complainant came down and reached on the spot, it was found that Baljinder Singh has succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas, Kulwinder Singh has received multiple injuries. As stated by the complainant, after sometime, he came to know the number of the jeep is PUW-7647 and the name of the driver of jeep is Manjit Singh @ Neeta S/O Ranjit Singh who had fled from the spot leaving behind the jeep. The injured was given medical aid. Then upon recording the said statement and upon completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before trial Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the two alleged eye witnesses Atma Singh (PW-1) and Kulwinder Singh (PW-2) had not supported the prosecution case. Only Gurcharan Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased, had deposed with regard to the manner of occurrence. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of the said sole witness. Criminal Revision No.2239 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that Gurcharan Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased has duly proved the manner of occurrence. As per Gurcharan Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased, the driver of the jeep in question, after overtaking the scooter on which he along with Atma Singh was travelling, struck against the scooter on which the deceased was travelling. The jeep in question was recovered from the spot. The father of the deceased had no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case and shield the real culprit. I have also gone through the photographs placed on record which also reveal that the jeep in question was lying at the spot. The Courts below have, thus, rightly convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to as already undergone by the petitioner. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE January 13, 2009 anita