CRR No. 1288 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1288 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.09.2010 Jeet Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus State of UT, Chandigarh .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U T Chandigarh -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the judgement and order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, the appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 15.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, convicting the petitioner under Section 279, 304-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was dismissed. While impugning the aforesaid judgement and orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution witnesses has failed to prove the fact of rash and negligent act of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer-PW6 failed to face the cross examination despite CRR No. 1288 of 2010 2 various opportunities provided by the trial Court. The injured PW5 did not support the prosecution case in cross examination. She was illiterate. Being illiterate, it is not understood as to how she gave the registration number of the truck to the police and that although the road was a busy road, no independent witness from the public was joined in the present case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 02.07.1998, complainant Constable Jaswinder Singh No. 2659, Police Post Sector 24, Chandigarh along with Constable Amrik Singh No. 2627 were patrolling between dividing road of Section 15-24 near Working Women Hostel, Sector 24- B,Chandigarh at about 9.30 p.m. One scooterist was going from the side of Sector 23/24/15/16 chowk towards Sector 24/25, 14/15, driven by a Hindu gentlemen and a lady was on the pillion along with a child. When the scooterist reached adjacent to the Working Women Hostel, Sector 24, Chandigarh from the side of chowk 14/15 and 24/25, Chandigarh, the accused came on Swaraj Mazda bearing registration number CH-01-K-9124 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck the scooterist, as a result of which, all the persons on scooter fell down and received injuries. The driver of the scooter and the female baby died on the spot due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The lady sitting on the scooter also suffered injuries. On receiving the information of accident, the police swung into action by lodging the FIR and launched its investigation, upon completion whereof, challan against the accused was present in the Court. PW5 is Piramma, wife of Ganga. She is the eye witness. She deposed that when she along with her husband and daughter of her brother- in-law was coming from the side of Mauli Jagran on a Scooter bearing Registration No. CHU 1866, one Swaraj Mazda truck came from the CRR No. 1288 of 2010 3 opposite direction being driven by the accused person, hit with their scooter, resultantly, she along with her husband and daughter of her brother-in-law fell down and sustained injuries. Her statement was corroborated by the official witnesses PW1 and PW3. Moreover, the petitioner was nabbed by the police officials on the spot. Thus, the fact that the said truck or the present petitioner was not involved in the present case does not arise. Accordingly, in the face of the injured eye witness and the fact that the accused having been caught on the spot by the police official as well as other evidence, no fault can be found with the well reasoned judgements and orders passed by both the Courts below. The present petition is a revision and the revisional Court has very limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the of petitioner is upheld. Although the prayer for grant of probation was rightly declined by the trial court, however, taking into account the totality of the facts of the present case, the sentence of the petitioner awarded under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is reduced to six months. However, there shall be no change in the sentence awarded under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code . The present petition is dismissed except for the modification in sentence awarded to the petitioner as indicated above. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 28, 2010 mohan