IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1849 of 2008 Date of decision : October 22, 2009 Karnail Singh ....Petitioner versus UT of Chandigarh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : None for the petitioner Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for UT Chandigarh L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) None is appearing for the petitioner inspite of pass over, although last and final opportunity has been granted. None either appeared for the petitioner on the preceding two dates of hearing. In view of the aforesaid, I have heard learned State counsel for the respondent and perused the case file. Karnail Singh has filed this revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence by both the courts below. The petitioner was tried for offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the allegations that on 15.4.2000 at about 11.30 PM, the petitioner while driving tractor No. PB- 56-6312 rashly and negligently and on wrong side hit the scooter of Inder Singh and then hit the scooter of Kamal Krishan on which his wife Sharda Rani was also on the pillion. Both of them fell down and suffered injuries. Kamal Krishan succumbed to his injuries suffered in the accident. Criminal Revision No. 1849 of 2008 -2- Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2005 convicted the petitioner under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- under section 279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- under section 304-A IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the appellant stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 12.7.2008. Feeling aggrieved the instant revision petition has been preferred by the convict. Prosecution has examined Tarun PW1, injured Sharda Rani PW2 and Inder Singh PW3 as eye witnesses of the accident. They have supported prosecution case. Their statements are corroborated by other evidence. There is no reason to doubt or discard their sworn statements. Their statements inspire confidence. FIR was lodged without delay and registration number of the offending tractor was also mentioned therein. Even the petitioner in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not alleged any ground for his false implication. Both the courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner on appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded and supported by cogent evidence led by the prosecution. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction which is affirmed. As Criminal Revision No. 1849 of 2008 -3- regards sentence also, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year only under section 304-A IPC. The same cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant reduction. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 22, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'