Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2001 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2001 Date of Decision:April 20, 2009 Milkha Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. S.S.Sidhu,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab *** SABINA, J. Milkha Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 21.7.1999 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda . Vide order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 19.12.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2001 {2} Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on July 16, 1997 Darshan Singh was admitted in Satluj Hospital because of the accidental injuries and an intimation in this regard was sent by the doctor to SHO, Police Station, Saraba Nagar, Ludhjiana from where a OST was sent to Police Post Bhucho Mandi. On receipt of this information, H.C.Gurdarshan Singh along with other police officials reached in Satluj Hospital, Ludhiana and he obtained opinion of the doctor regarding his fitness to make statement. He was declared fit to make statement so his statement was recorded. Darshan Singh stated in his statement that he was going to village Gill Khurd after getting the Karyana articles for his shop from Bhucho Mandi. When he reached ahead of Gaushala on road of village Chak Bakhtu Wali, a jeep which was being driven rashly and negligently came all of a sudden and hit his scooter directly, as a result of which he (Darshan Singh) received injuries and the scooter was also damaged, and he became un-conscious. His uncle Bagh Singh was coming after him on his own scooter and he took him to Dr. Ved Parkash Garg who referred him to Dr. Badyal at Bathinda from where he was referred to Satluj Hospital Ludhiana where he was medically treated. The said statement was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR No. 44 of July 17, 1997 was recorded against the accused under Sections Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2001 {3} 279/337/338/427 IPC in Police Station, Nathana. The police officials then visited the spot and prepared the rough site plan. Scooter bearing registration No. PCR- 5402 and jeep bearing registration No. PB-03-C-0146 along with driving licence No. 44337 were taken into possession vide recovery memo prepared at the spot. The accused was arrested. The scooter and jeep were got mechanically checked from Abhey Singh Mechanic. However, Darshan Singh succumbed due to injuries suffered by him, on July 31, 1997 in Satluj Hospital, Ludhiana so offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was added in the FIR. Post Mortem on the dead body was got conducted from said Satluj Hospital, Ludhiana. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of the formalities of investigation, the accused was challaned.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, no accident as alleged, had been caused by the petitioner. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving and overloaded scooter and the brakes of the scooter were not in working order. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the statement of PW-2 to support his plea that in fact no accident as alleged had taken place. Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The petitioner had gone on the wrong side of the road and had struck against the scooter driven by the deceased. Accident in the present case had taken place on 15.7.1997. Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2001 {4} Injured made his statement before the police on the same day. However, formal FIR was registered on 17.7.1997. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW-1 Bhag Singh who has deposed with regard to the manner of accident. The accident had taken place at 4-30 p.m. On the day of accident, PW-1 Bhag Singh was travelling on a scooter with his nephew Darshan Singh from Bhucho Mandi to their village Gill Khurd. The jeep, in question, came from opposite side at a fast speed and struck against the scooter driven by deceased Darshan Singh. As a result of this, Darshan Singh suffered injuries. PW-1 Bhag Singh knew the petitioner before hand and duly identified him. As per the site plan Annexure PW-9/F, it is evident that at the time of accident, the jeep driven by the petitioner had travelled on its wrong side and had cause the accident. The photographer-PW-2 has stated in his cross examination that he had clicked photographs twice on 17.7.1997. At the first instance when he clicked the photographs, the jeep was standing on the kacha portion of the road and at the second instance when he clicked the photographs the jeep was standing on the road . From the statement of PW-2, it is evident that his grievance is that he was not paid money for clicking the photographs and the possibility that due to this grievance he had deposed with a view to help the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The site plan has been prepared by the Investigating Officer in discharge of his official duty and the investigating officer had no enmity or reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. From the site plan it is evident that the jeep in question had travelled on it wrong side at the time of accident and the same is corroborated by the statement of the eye witness. Eye witness PW-1 had no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case and shield the real culprit. The jeep in question was recovered from Crl. Revision No. 1763 of 2001 {5} the spot. Accordingly, there is no force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A IPC as ordered by the courts below, is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. With the above modification, petition stands disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE April 20, 2009 PARAMJIT