Crl. Rev. No. 1068 of 2011 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1068 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 02, 2011 Jagtar Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga dated 22.01.2009, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months and fine ` 1,000 (in default R.I. for one month) and for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months; and judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide which the judgment of conviction passed by the Magistrate has been upheld, however, order of sentence has been modified. Accordingly, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months alongwith fine of ` 1,000 for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC whereas R.I. for six months for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC has been upheld. 2. At the first instance, learned counsel has tried to develop an Crl. Rev. No. 1068 of 2011 (O & M) 2 argument that the identity of the petitioner as being the driver of the offending vehicle has not been established and, therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 3. The issue has been dealt with in para no. 15 of the judgment rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. It has been brought out that the petitioner was driving a truck owned by Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur Depot. PW-3 Amarjit Singh-complainant has come to the witness box to state that he was standing nearby when Mander Singh rickshaw puller, who was residing near his house, came there and the said witness started talking to Mander Singh. In the meantime, truck driven by the petitioner at a high speed and without blowing horn struck against the rickshaw, as a result of which Mander Singh sustained many injuries and got unconscious. The petitioner was identified as the driver. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence that was material, however, has not been referred to so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel further has not been able to show any piece of evidence that has been ignored by the Courts below. 5. In such circumstances, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction has been shown. 6. I also find that learned counsel has not shown to this Court that any suggestion was given to the witnesses to the effect that the Punjab Roadways truck viz. the offending vehicle was being driven by another driver employed by Punjab Roadways. In such circumstances, the Court is convinced that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court are in terms with evidence that has been brought on Crl. Rev. No. 1068 of 2011 (O & M) 3 record. 7. Faced with the above circumstances, learned counsel has tried to develop an argument that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was negligent in driving the truck. 8. Statement of Amarjit Singh has come on the record to say that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently and the same hit the rickshaw causing death of Mander Singh. 9. In the face of such evidence, the conclusion as suggested by the learned counsel cannot be drawn. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioner was earlier convicted for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC in case FIR No. 208 dated 02.12.2002, P.S. Zira. The sentence of the petitioner was reduced by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.04.2011. 11. It follows that the petitioner is the second offender having committed same offence a second time. 12. No ground for interference either in judgment of conviction or in order of sentence is made out. 13. Petition dismissed. 02.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?