Criminal Revision No.2465 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2465 of 2003 Date of Decision 14.12.2010 Nand Lal ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gurvinder S.Sandhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Vide judgment dated 21.12.1998, passed by the trial Court, Nand Lal accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. The appeal, preferred by him was dismissed on 25.11.2003. Factual matrix of the case is that on 20.02.1992, when the accused while driving the bus bearing registration No.HYN-2250 was 1½ kilometers ahead of village Bhagsar, the bus collided with a jeep coming from the opposite side, due to which the occupants of the jeep sustained injuries and one woman and one child died at the spot. Another boy, Criminal Revision No.2465 of 2003 2 travelling in the jeep, succumbed to his injuries on the way to General Hospital, Sirsa. The complainant further stated that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused. On the basis of aforesaid statement of complainant Gurdev Singh, case was registered and investigated. The Investigating Officer collected the post- mortem reports and the MLRs; recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. On submission of the charge report, the accused was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined complainant Gurdev Singh (PW1), Vinod Kumar (PW2), Tara Chand (PW3), Sandeep Kumar (PW4), Megh Raj (PW5), Pirthi Raj (PW6), ASI Roshan Lal (PW7), Hardayal (PW8), Harbhajan Singh, Mechanic (PW9), Dr.Santosh Bishnoi (PW10), Hanuman, Duty Clerk (PW10-A), ASI Ram Kishan (PW11) and Narain Dutt (PW12). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. It is not in dispute that the accused was not driving the offending bus at the time of accident, as proved by Hanuman, a Duty Clerk (PW10-A). It is also proved on record by the medical evidence that as a result of the accident, one lady and one female child died at the spot and a man succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital whereas the driver of the jeep and four other occupants were injured. Without denying the accident, Sh.Gurinder Pal Singh, counsel Criminal Revision No.2465 of 2003 3 for the petitioner, has urged that the basic ingredient, in order to prove the culpability of the petitioner, is his rashness and negligence, which the prosecution has failed to establish. He has taken me through the statements of some of the witnesses stating that they did not mention if the accused was rash or negligent. In this regard, it may be observed that there is no merit in this contention. Pirthi Raj (PW6), who was occupant of the jeep, has stated in unequivocal words that the accused was driving the offending bus rashly and negligently and at a high speed and he, while bringing the bus on the wrong side, struck the same in the jeep. During the cross-examination, he has further stated that he had seen the accused driving rashly from a distance of 20-25 feet. This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing fruitful could be elicited, which may be treated as sufficient to shatter his credibility, reliability and trustworthiness. Complainant Gurdev Singh (PW1), though has not stated in specific words about the negligence of the accused but if his statement is read as a whole then it could be inferred that this witness also wanted to convey that the accident took place as a result of the fault on the part of the accused. Similarly, Vinod Kumar (PW2), has stated that the accused was driving the bus on the wrong side, which was the cause of the accident and after the accident, he fled away. The testimonies of the witnesses, who were the occupants of the jeep, are sufficient to hold that the accused was driving the bus rashly and negligently. That apart, while going through the photographs, produced on the record clearly indicate that the accused was coming on the wrong side, struck against the jeep, killing three persons and injuring other occupants of the jeep. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that re-appreciation of Criminal Revision No.2465 of 2003 4 evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible and the concurrent findings of fact, returned by both the Courts below, could not be interfered with except in case where such expression of opinion was formed on the basis of no evidence, misreading or misinterpretation of evidence or some material illegality has been committed, causing serious prejudice to the accused but nothing such was detected in the case. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 14.12.2010 mamta-II