Criminal Revision No. 1526 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1526 of 2009 Date of decision : November 26, 2009 Ishwar Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Ishwar Singh has filed this revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence by the courts below. Ishwar Singh was tried for offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC on the averments that on 3.7.1997, the petitioner while driving Punjab Roadways bus No. PB-12B-8212 rashly and negligently hit moped No. PB-04-7443 from behind. Balwinder Singh complainant was driving the moped with his wife Bhinder Kaur and daughter Resham Kaur aged 9 years on it. All of them fell down. Bhinder Kaur was run over by the bus and died at the spot. The complainant and his daughter also suffered injuries. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2003 convicted the petitioner under sections 279, 337 and Criminal Revision No. 1526 of 2009 -2- 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- under section 304-A IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- under section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- under section 337 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 19.5.2009 except to the extent that sentence of imprisonment for 1½ years under section 304-A IPC has been reduced to imprisonment for six months. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Balwinder Singh and Resham Kaur stated about the accident but did not state that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. They were declared hostile. However, Constable Karnail Singh who was on duty on police naka and witnessed the accident, has fully supported the prosecution case in the witness box. Petitioner was caught at the spot. The bus also remained at the spot and was seized from there. Both the courts below after appreciation of evidence arrived at concurrent finding of fact that guilt of the petitioner stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently referred to alleged discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. However, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, evidence is not to be appreciated again. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence. The finding by both the courts Criminal Revision No. 1526 of 2009 -3- below is not shown to be unreasonable much less illegal or perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Karnail Singh Constable was at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence and therefore, he could not have deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. The contention, although attractive apparently on first blush, is devoid of any merit. Karnail Singh was mentioned as eye witness of the accident in the FIR itself which was lodged immediately after the occurrence. Karnail Singh was not at the distance of 100 yards from the place of accident but was 50 yards away as he stated that accident took place 70/80 yards from the drums of naka and Karnail Singh was himself 20 yards away from the said drums on the same side on which the accident took place. This distance of 50 yards is also mentioned in the FIR itself. Moreover, when the bus hit the moped from behind, there is presumption that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' is fully attracted. The said presumption has not been rebutted. The petitioner has not led any evidence in defence. There is also no reason why Karnail Singh would depose falsely against the petitioner. Karnail Singh had no interest in the case. On the other hand, the complainant and his daughter turned hostile but apparently it was so at the instance of petitioner. The accident did take place. The bus and moped were at the spot and were seized from there. Dead body was lying there. Petitioner was arrested at the spot as stated by Karnail Singh as well as by Investigating Officer ASI Rachpal Singh PW12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended that Constable Jaswant Singh had also allegedly witnessed the occurrence but has not been examined as eye witness. However, it is quality and not Criminal Revision No. 1526 of 2009 -4- quantity of evidence that matters. Evidence is to be weighed not counted. Under section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove a fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended that the accident had taken place on the verge of pucca road and kutcha berm and therefore, complainant might have lost balance himself. The contention cannot be accepted because there is no material on record to substantiate that the complainant himself lost balance. The complainant's daughter was aged 9 years only and therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant would have lost balance merely because he was carrying his wife as well as his daughter on the moped. I find no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below holding the petitioner to be guilty. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. As regards sentence, learned appellate court has already dealt with the matter very leniently. The sentence of imprisonment has been reduced to six months under section 304-A IPC The said reduced sentence cannot be said to be excessive and does not warrant further reduction. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested, to undergo remaining period of sentence. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 26, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'