Criminal Revision No.2044 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2044 of 2003 Date of Decision 04.10.2010 Darshan Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.V.K.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.07.2003, passed by the first Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner- accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 25.03.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Case relates to an accident allegedly caused on account of the fault on the part of the petitioner in which the police officer had died when he was making an endeavour to stop the offending truck. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 29.04.1995, ASI Mohinder Pal Singh alongwith other police officials was present on Taran Taaran Bye- pass in connection with a picket and VIP duty. At about 7:30 p.m., the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HYD-6377 came from Tarn Taran side. Despite the signal given to him by Kabul Singh, the accused neither stopped the truck nor used any dipper and after passing by the Constable Kabul Singh, he also did not respond to SPO Sardul Singh Criminal Revision No.2044 of 2003 2 rather he ran his truck over him. Constable Kabul Singh with the help of Head Constable Joginder Singh stopped the oncoming canter and chased the offending truck on the said canter and arrested the accused at some distance. Thereafter, they shifted SPO Sardul Singh to Civil Hospital Manawala where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of statement Ex.PW2/A, made by ASI Mohinder Pal Singh, formal FIR Ex.PW2/B was registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. He was charged under Section 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.R.K.Goria (PW1), Head Constable Joginder Singh (PW2), Surinder Pal Singh (PW3), Manohar Lal Mechanic (PW4), ASI Mohinder Pal Singh (PW5), Constable Kabul Singh (PW6) and Som Nath (PW7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. The prime contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is with regard to the doubtful identity of the accused. Having pondered over the aforesaid argument, the same lacks merit. It is not a case where the accused had succeeded in running away or he could not be identified due to night time, rather the witnesses had seen the accused when they had asked him to stop the vehicle; thereafter, when the accused did not respond to the signal given by Kabul Singh or SPO Sardul Singh and ran the truck over him and tried to run away then Head Constable Kabul Singh with the help of Head Constable Joginder Singh, after catching a canter, chased the truck and apprehended him at a distance. The occurrence in the case Criminal Revision No.2044 of 2003 3 took place at about 7:30 p.m.; ruqa was sent to the police station forthwith; the accused was arrested within no time and the statement of ASI Mohinder Pal Singh Ex.PW2/A was recorded on the same day at 9:30 p.m. on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW2/B was registered at Police Station Jandiala. No doubt, Constable Kabul Singh has stated that after apprehending the truck, the same was brought back to police Chawki Bundala, thus, it is clear that as per site plan, the police Chawki Bundala is shown to be quite in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The truck was apprehended at certain distance and as such, it was brought back to the police post. Even otherwise, both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact that it was the accused who had committed the crime. No further misappropriation of evidence is permissible at this revisional stage. The scope of interference at this stage is very restricted in nature and the same could be made only if the judgment was bad in as much as in the conduct of trial or procedure, the evidence has not been appreciated and the same has been misinterpreted but nothing such was pointed out by the counsel, therefore, the findings, returned by the Courts below stand affirmed. The high-handedness of the accused in speeding the truck on seeing the police party and not to bother the police personnel and the fact that he prepared to crush him than to respond to the police official, are such glaring facts that impress upon this Court not to extend any leniency to him on the quantum of sentence. For the aforesaid discussion, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 04.10.2010 mamta-II