Criminal Revision No.137 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.137 of 2004 Date of Decision 29.09.2010 Bhola Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 03.01.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 24.01.2002, passed by the trial Court, slapping a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 IPC. However, appellate Court reduced the sentence to 1½ years under Section 304-A IPC. On 28.06.1997 Amar Singh alongwith his cousin Mohinder Singh was going to their village on scooter bearing registration No.PB-10- M-6173. Mohinder Singh was on the wheels whereas he (Amar Singh) was on the pillion. At about 12:00 p.m., when they reached near I.T.I. College, the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-04-B-9776 rashly and negligently came from the Ludhiana side and struck against the scooter. Resultantly, front tyre of the truck hit Mohinder Singh's scooter, Criminal Revision No.137 of 2004 2 therefore, he got struck in the front tyre and was dragged by two karms and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Complainant raised alarm. At this, the accused, who had come down to see the accident, fled away. On the aforesaid statement, made by Amar Singh, FIR was registered and case was investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The charges under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Amar Singh (PW1), Constable Kewal Singh (PW2), Hardial Singh (PW3), L.C.Jaswant Singh (PW4), Gurjant Singh, Mechanic (PW5), Dr.Mohinder Pal (PW6), Dr.Vajinder Singh, Radiologist (PW7), ASI Chamkaur Singh (PW8) and Amarjit Sigh (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused, while denying all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded his false implication. In defence, he examined Baba Singh (DW1) and Garja Singh (DW2). The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Record perused. The star witnesses to prove the prosecution case are Amar Singh (PW1) and Hardial Singh (PW3). Amar Singh, besides being an eye witness, having been injured in the accident, is a stamped witness in the case. He has narrated all the events in sequence leading to the accident. Both have consistently stated that it was the accused who was responsible for the accident. After the accident when the accused had come down from Criminal Revision No.137 of 2004 3 the truck, he had been seen by Amar Singh (PW1) as well as Hardial Singh (PW3) that is why both identified him being the culprit. Amar Singh (PW1) states that the accused after getting down from the truck ran towards the market, though, Hardial Singh (PW3) is discrepant on the point, while he states that the accused ran towards Ludhiana side but that discrepancy is not too material to ignore their testimonies as a whole. Even otherwise, the identity of the accused cannot be denied. When the accused was in the process of leaving the place of occurrence, his driving licence had fallen down, which was recovered from the spot. The driving licence bears his photograph, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. The testimonies of Amar Singh (PW1) and Hardial Singh (PW3) stand corroborated by the post mortem report Ex.PW6/D, as proved by Dr.Mohinder Pal (PW6). He has also proved the injury report Ex.PW6/B relating to Amar Singh. Both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact that it was the accused who by his rash and negligent act committed the accident, therefore, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this revisional stage. No such defect, illegality or error apparent on record was found which may invite interference of this Court. No plausible defence has been led in order to prove his innocence. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.09.2010 mamta-II