Crl. Revision No. 778 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 778 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 4, 2011 Piara Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 8.3.2010, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and nine months for offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code as well as against judgment dated 9.3.2011, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment/order was dismissed. Succinctly the facts necessary for the disposal are that Randhir Singh alongwith his son Manjit Singh were coming back to their village Sahib Da Pind from village Pandori Arian, in a car bearing No.PIQ 8845. Manjit singh was driving the car. Randhir Singh was sitting on the back seat. On the way, one unidentified woman aged about 50-52 years, who was Crl. Revision No. 778 of 2011 (O&M) 2 a baptized Sikh woman, asked for lift. She was given lift and allowed to board the car. She sat on the front seat. One Tara Singh resident of Aima Mangat also boarded the car at Adda. When the car reached near Power Colony, one truck bearing No.PJJ 6925 came from the opposite side. The truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The truck driver struck the truck against the Maruti Car, which Manjit Singh was driving. As a result of accident, the unidentified lady, who was traveling in the car, died at the spot. Manjit Singh also received injuries in the accident. Randhir Singh brought his son to Civil Hospital Dasuya, where Manjit Singh succumbed to his injuries. Tara Singh had also received minor injuries. Randhir Singh did not receive any injury. The truck driver managed to run away from the place of accident. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant and sent ruqa to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was reported. The post-mortem examination on the dead bodies were got performed. The vehicles involved in the accident were taken into possession. On 15.3.2002 petitioner Piara Singh suffered an extra judicial confession before Balkar Singh Ex-member panchayat to the effect that he was the owner of truck no. PJJ 6925 and on 10.3.2002 while he was driving the truck the same met with an accident with car no. PIQ 8845, near GT Road in which one woman and car driver sustained injuries and requested him (Balkar Singh) to get the matter compromised. Balkar Singh produced the petitioner before the police and the petitioner was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation challan was presented against the accused. After framing of the charge the prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses and closed its evidence. Thereafter statement of Crl. Revision No. 778 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he took the stand that he had been falsely implicated in this case, however, he did not adduce in the defence evidence. After hearing both the parties the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as noticed above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no evidence on the file which could prove that the petitioner was driving the truck in question on the fateful day nor his identity could be established during investigation and in fact he has been identified by the prosecution witnesses for the first time in the Court, but the learned trial Court has overlooked all these infirmities occurred in the prosecution case and as such the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the same are liable to be rejected out-rightly. Undisputedly, Bimla Devi and Manjit Singh died in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 10.3.2002 and post-mortem examination on the dead bodies was conducted on 11.3.2002 by PW9 Dr. Naresh Kumar. Balkar Singh PW3 has categorically deposed that the petitioner accused suffered a disclosure statement admitting his guilt regarding the accident in which one woman died at the spot and the driver of the car sustained injuries which later on proved fatal. Tara Singh PW5, who has witnessed the accident in question, has categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PJJ 6925 and after causing the accident the accused fled away from the spot. He has identified the petitioner accused as the culprit for causing the accident. The truck in Crl. Revision No. 778 of 2011 (O&M) 4 question was taken into possession by the police and the same was also mechanically tested. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence, available on the record, have rightly came to the conclusion that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Though the petitioner has taken stand that he has been falsely implicated in this case, yet he has not been able to show as to why he has been falsely implicated in this case particularly when the complainant party has no enmity against him. Moreover, it is not denied by the accused that truck No. PJJ 6925, offending truck did not cause accident nor he has denied that offending truck does not belong to him. It is proved on the record that truck No. PJJ 6925 was involved in the accident. Truck was not reported to be stolen or taken away by any person from the possession/custody of the petitioner. The learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and there is nothing on record to prove the innocence of the petitioner-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error or law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is ample evi- dence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I can re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left un-noticed by the trial Court while deciding the case. In the final analysis, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge April 4, 2011 Anand