IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No.2405 OF 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 05, 2011 Gurjant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Submission made by the counsel for the petitioner to impugn the conviction under Section 304-A IPC is that no eye-witness or witness to the incident was examined. I have perused the judgment. It is clearly recorded therein that two eye-witnesses had seen the occurrence. Rather, one of the witness ultimately examined and produced before the court was travelling in the Canter driven by the petitioner. His evidence has been considered by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. Both the witnesses have been termed to be most natural. In view of this, the submission that there was no person to identify the petitioner to be the driver of the vehicle cannot be accepted. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. October 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE