Crl.Rev.No. 2927/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No. 2927/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2010. Baldev Singh ....................Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Manish Prabhakar,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC is directed against the judgement dated 17.4.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Tarn Taran, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the learned JMIC Tarn Taran, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to under RI for six months under Section 279 IPC and RI for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC, was upheld. Briefly noticed the FIR No.167 dated 28.12.2001 under Sections 304-A, 279, 337,338,427 IPC, PS Sadar Tarn Taran was recorded on the statement of complainant Jagroop Singh. It was stated by him that on 28.12.2001 at about 6 pm he alongwith his wife Lakhwinder Kaur, son Pardeep Singh, daughter Lovepreet Kaur and Crl.Rev.No. 2927/2010(O&M) 2 co-villagers Sukhbir Kaur, Gursewak Singh and Shindo were travelling in a jeep bearing registration NO. GBQ-894 driven by Surjit Singh from Village Kastlwal to Village Toot Jhugian Peer Baksh. When they reached near Sarhali Khurd, truck no. PB-02-S-9777 being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Patti and struck against the jeep, dragging the jeep upto a distance of 20 feet. In this collision Shindo and Surjit Singh died at the spot while Kuldip Kaur and Swaran Kaur died in hospital. Other occupants i.e. complainant and his wife received injuries. After lodging of the FIR investigations were completed, petitioner was arrested on 3.1.2002. After completion of investigations and presentation of challan, accused was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 338,337 IPC, to which charges he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Both sides led evidence. Learned trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran.Hence the present revision petition. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel is that the petitioner has been falsely involved as on the basis of material available on record, it could not be said that it was petitioner who was driving the offending truck, as his identity could not be proved. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally erroneous. Crl.Rev.No. 2927/2010(O&M) 3 While dismissing the appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that though complainant had not named the petitioner in the FIR, however, his wife, who was travelling in the ill fated jeep had named the accused in her statement recorded by the police as well as during her deposition in the Court. She has stated that after the accident the accused had run away from the spot and was seen by her while coming out of the truck. She identified the accused-petitioner in the Court as well. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also noticed that in her cross examination no suggestion was put to her that petitioner was not driving the offending vehicle. In my opinion, in view of the deposition of the injured witness Lakhwinder Kaur, learned appellate court has rightly held that identity of the petitioner stands fully established. No other point has been urged before me. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the present revision petition is dismissed. 29.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge