Crl. Rev. No.3205 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3205 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.05.2010 Gursharan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the Order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, vide which, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed vide Order dated 28.11.2009. The facts as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur are that “on dated 14.06.1998, police party was on duty when Crl. Rev. No.3205 of 2009 2 Kulwant Singh got recorded his statement that he is running general store in the village and was going to village Ghot along with his brother in law Tarsem Singh on separate scooters. Tarsem Singh was going on his scooter in front of him when at about 5 P.M. mini bus being driven by the accused already known to him caused the accident in rash and negligent manner with the scooter of Tarsem Singh and Tarsem Singh died at the spot. Accused ran away after leaving the bus at the spot. On this statement the case was registered and after completion of investigation and other necessary formalities the challan was presented in the court against the accused.” The prosecution produced PW-1 Kulwant Singh (since complainant), PW-2 Krishan Gopal (Mechanic), PW-3 Dr. S.K. Hans and PW-4 ASI Ravisher Singh (Investigating Officer) in evidence. It was not denied that the accident took place and one person died at spot. The only thing that was required to be seen was as to whether the petitioner was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. In fact, in the entire case, the only defence was that accident was caused by some body else and accused has nothing to do with the same. However, it was proved beyond doubt that the accident took place by the concerned bus of which the petitioner was the driver. No reason was pointed out that why he should have been involved in this case. Kulwant Singh is the prime witness of the prosecution and he deposed that the accused was known to him prior to the accident and he was driving the mini bus in rash and negligent manner and he struck the scooter which was being driven by Tarsem Singh. Thus, the identification of the petitioner is not in doubt. This is a revision petition. Two Courts have come to a concurrent conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving and he was undoubtedly the person who was driving the said mini bus. The complainant is, in fact, the person who is running a general store Crl. Rev. No.3205 of 2009 3 in the village and he was going to Village Ghot along with his brother-in-law Tarsem Singh on separate scooter. His evidence cannot be doubted. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. In view of the above, the prosecution has proved his case and there is no ground to set aside the Order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, convicting the petitioner and the Order dated 28.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which, the appeal against the conviction order was dismissed. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, taking into account that the petitioner is facing trial since 1998 and he has already undergone six months out of a total sentence of one year under Section 304-A IPC and being the first offender, he is ordered to be released on probation for the remaining period of sentence i.e. six months under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a bond with one surety in the like amount to keep good conduct and be of good behaviour and keep peace for a period of six months from the date of execution of the bond. However, this order is subject to the payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the claimants of the deceased. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of except with the modification of sentence as above. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 24.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet