Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2002 Date of decision: 12.01.2009 Jaspal Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.S.Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Akshay Goel, Advocate. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs.250/-; he was further convicted for an offence under Section 337 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and a fine of Rs.250/- and he was also convicted for an offence under Section 304-A Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2002 2 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.500/- vide judgment and order dated 3.2.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bathinda. 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 3.5.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment dated 3.5.2002, is reproduced herein below:- “The brief prosecution story is that on 25.2.1998 an information was received from Civil Hospital, Bathinda regarding bus accident. ASI Paramjit Singh along with police party reached there and recorded the statement of Baldev Singh son of Suchha Singh R/o Sevian who stated that he is an agriculturist and at about 2.30/2.45 p.m. he started his journey from old bus stand Bathinda to Bhhucho Kalan in connection with domestic work in the bus of Prem Motors. The bus was being driven by Jaspal Singh accused who drove the bus roughly and negligently through out the way and the passengers sitting in the bus asked him Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2002 3 to drive the bus slowly but the driver Jaspal Singh did not care of their requests and drove the bus in the same manner. When the bus reached near Bhhucho Khurd then it was over turned towards the left side of the road with the result that he and many passengers got injuries and after the accident they were got admitted in Civil Hospital, Bathinda where one of the injured succumbed to the injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused at 3.15 p.m. in the area of Bhhucho Khurd. On the basis of statement of Baldev Singh, case was registered and investigation was started. The deceased was identified as Hari Ram son of Jugraj Singh R/o V.Bhhucho Kalan who died due to injuries received in the accident of bus of Prem Motors. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and rough site plan was prepared with correct marginal notes. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The bus and the broken glasses of the bus were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. The passengers had been injured which were 8 in number. On completion of investigation challan was presented against the Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2002 4 accused in the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. No identification parade had been conducted by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the identify of the petitioner was not established in this case. He has further submitted that the accident had occurred due to breaking of Axle of the bus. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and it turned turtle. As a result of this the passengers travelling therein suffered injuries and one of them succumbed to his injuries. In the present case although the complainant Baldev Singh (PW-6) failed to identify the petitioner in the Court, but the injured witnesses Amarjit Kaur (PW-4) and Harjit Kaur (PW-8) have deposed that the bus in question was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and as a result it turned turtle. Bus was recovered from the spot. The injured witnesses had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. There is also no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident had, in fact, occurred due to breaking of the Axle of the bus. It has not come in the report of the mechanic that the Axle of the Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2002 5 bus had broken and due to this reason, the accident had occurred. In the cross-examination, the mechanic deposed that he had not examined the Axle of the bus. From this the petitioner cannot draw any benefit because had there been break down of the Axle, it would have definitely come to the notice of the mechanic when he had examined the bus and the fact that it did not come to his notice leads to the inference that the plea taken by the petitioner that the Axle of the bus had broken is an afterthought. Both the Courts had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304- A IPC. Hence, no interference is warranted by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2009 anita