In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 659 of 2002 Date of decision: November 11, 2008 Balbir Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Balbir Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') and maintaining the judgment dated 24.7.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 7.10.1997, at about 5.00 p.m. the complainant Hardip Singh was standing outside his shop while Pishora Singh was sent on scooter bearing registration No.PB-02-P-3655 towards Beas side for bringing spare parts. When Pishora Singh covered a little distance ahead of canal bridge, then the petitioner while driving truck bearing registration No. PB-05-2388 of Green Roadways Amritsar rashly and negligently came from behind and hit Pishora Singh from backside. Consequently, Pishora Singh fell down and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered, investigated and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against him. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Crl. Revision No. 659 of 2002 -2- *** Balraj Kaur (PW1) who proved the registration certificate of scooter No.PB- 02-P-3655 Ex.P1 and that of truck bearing registration No.PB-05-2388 Ex.P2. Hardip Singh (PW2) is the complainant as well as the eye witness of the accident. Ram Lal (PW3), mechanic proved the mechanical report Ex.PW3/A of the truck. C. Major Singh (PW4) is the witness to the recovery memos. Karnail Singh (PW5), Mukhtiar Singh (PW6) is the another eye witness of the occurrence. Dr. Kuldip Singh (PW7) proved the postmortem report Ex.PW7/A. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prosecution version has been duly established by Hardip Singh complainant (PW2) as well as Mukhtiar Singh (PW6). Both being eye witnesses to the occurrence have given constant version of the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence took place. They were subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing could be elicited which could create a dent in the prosecution version. Identity of the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle has also been established on record. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has thrown the petitioner at the mercy of the court and harped for some leniency. Taking into consideration the conspectus of evidence and the fact that the petitioner has been facing trial since 1997, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to nine months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for compliance. November 11, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge