Criminal Revision No.600 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 600 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.03.2010 ` Chhotu Ram so of Sh. Dalmira, r/o Sadarpur, Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of conviction dated 03.11.09, and the order of sentence dated 04.11.09, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioner), for the offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, and, sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment, and the judgement dated 11.02.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. Criminal Revision No.600 of 2010 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 27.11.01, at about 1.00 AM, Mahavir Singh, complainant, alongwith Yadvinder, Raj Singh, Virender, Joginder and Rajbir Singh, was returning from Delhi to Karnal, in a TATA Sumo, bearing registration No. HR-26E-9702, being driven by Chhotu Ram, accused (now revision-petitioner), in a rash and negligent manner. When they reached near Baba Pir ahead of Sewah, the vehicle, rammed into a truck, parked on the road, as a result whereof, Raj Singh, died, on the spot, whereas, the other occupants suffered serious injuries. Consequently, an FIR, was registered, by the Police, against Chhotu Ram, accused (now revision-petitioner). Post- mortem of the dead-body of Raj Singh, deceased, was got conducted, the report whereof was received. The other injured were also got medically examined. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused and his co-accused namely Harinder, were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. Charge under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 283 IPC, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Nathu Ram (PW1), Mahavir Singh, complainant (PW2), Yadvinder, eye- witness (PW3), Satnarayan, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4), Dr. Pankaj Mutneja (PW5), Dr. Tejinder Kharbanda (PW6), Mehtab Singh, Criminal Revision No.600 of 2010 3 Assistant Sub Inspector (PW7), Anil Kadiyan (PW8), and, Rajbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW9). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. 6. During the pendency of the trial, Harinder, co-accused, absconded, and, was declared proclaimed offender. 7. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He however, did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 9. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide judgement dated 11.02.2010. 10. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration the material aspect, that the presence of Mahavir Singh, PW2 and Yadvinder Singh, PW3, was doubtful. He further submitted that, even the identity of the revision- petitioner, as driver of the offending vehicle, was not established, as he Criminal Revision No.600 of 2010 4 did not receive any injury, in the alleged accident. He further submitted that, even Nathu Ram, PW1, during the course of his cross- examination, admitted that the accident, took place, due to darkness and the negligence of the driver of the truck. He further submitted that the Courts below, were, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the revision-petitioner, was guilty of the offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the identity of the revision-petitioner, was duly proved, from the statement of Mahavir Singh, complainant, PW2, who was travelling in the offending vehicle. He further submitted that, even Yadvinder Singh, an eye-witness, PW3, who was also travelling, in the offending vehicle, supported the statement of Mahavir Singh, PW2. He further submitted that, even from the evidence of these witnesses, it was duly proved, that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent, at the time of driving the same, as a result whereof, Raj Singh, sitting by his side, suffered injuries, in the accident, which took place with the standing truck, resulting into his death. He further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. 14. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law that, this Court, Criminal Revision No.600 of 2010 5 in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, were the result of complete misreading and misappreciation of evidence or non- consideration of material pieces of evidence. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Mahavir Singh, complainant-cum- eyewitness, PW2, Yadvinder, eyewitness, PW3, both travelling, in the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, Dr. Pankaj Mutneja, PW5, who medico-legally examined Joginder Singh, Rajbir Singh, and, Virender Singh, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same, was cogent, convincing, reliable, and sufficient to hold the accused guilty, for the offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. As stated above, the complainant and Yadvinder Singh, were travelling, in the offending vehicle, and, as such, the question of mis-identity of the driver of the offending vehicle, did not at all arise. The rashness or negligence, in driving the offending vehicle, was also proved, from their evidence. Nathu Ram, PW1, was not an eye-witness, but, he was Sub Inspector, posted in Police Station, Chandni Bagh, and, he recorded the statement of Mahavir Singh, complainant, when he was on duty, on the basis of which, the FIR, was registered. His evidence, therefore, to the effect, that the driver of the offending vehicle, was not Criminal Revision No.600 of 2010 6 rash or negligent, was hardly of any consequence, in the face of cogent and convincing evidence of Mahavir Singh, complainant, and, Yadvinder Singh, eye-witness. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction. The same are liable to be upheld. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, are upheld. 16. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgement. 18.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE