Crl.R. No.2664 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R. No.2664 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: May 25, 2011 JARNAIL SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. P.B.S. GORAYA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, DAG, PUNJAB. M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL) 1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar for offence under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of `200/- and in default to undergo further period of 15 days. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. The revision petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of Sessions at Amritsar. The appellate Court having thoroughly perused the judgement passed by the trial Court in the background of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate Court, the present revision has been preferred by the accused- revision petitioner. 2. In a motor accident that took place on 22.3.2000 at about 12.30 p.m., Surjit Singh, father of PW3 Jagdeep Singh was crushed by an oil tanker lorry driven by the revision petitioner and as a result of which he Crl.R. No.2664 of 2008 -2- died on the spot. 3. PW3 is none other than the son of deceased Surjit Singh. PW4 Manjit Singh was the partner of PW3. The deceased had a factory just opposite the selling unit of PW3 and PW4. 4. PW3 being the complainant and eye witness and PW4 who accompanied PW3 and witnessed the occurrence have categorically deposed before the trial Court that the oil tanker lorry driven by the revision petitioner came at a breakneck speed without blowing horn and dashed the scooter driven by deceased Surjit Singh from behind and crushed Surjit Singh and carried the scooter as well as the injured for about 10-15 yards. 5. Of course, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the accident had taken place in a congested traffic place and no one would have driven a vehicle in such a location at a breakneck speed. Drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence of DW2, an oil tanker operator, he would submit that DW2 has witnessed the vehicle moving at a slow speed. Further he would submit that the scooter driven by the deceased suddenly emerged on the right side of the road and as a result of which the accident had taken place. Lastly, he would submit that the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be substantially reduced, if this Court is not convinced with the submission seeking acquittal made on behalf of the revision petitioner. 6. Mr.Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab appearing for the State would submit that the presence of PW3 and PW4 was not challenged by the accused, who was examined as DW1 before the trial Court. He would submit that the evidence of PW3 and PW4 would establish that the oil tanker lorry was driven by the revision petitioner in a rash and negligent Crl.R. No.2664 of 2008 -3- manner and as a result of which the accident took place. 7. I have perused the judgement of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court which are under challenge before this Court in this revision. Both the Courts below have relied upon the ocular testimony of PW3 and PW4 and have come to a conclusion that it was only the revision petitioner who drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Of course, the accused has brought an oil tanker operator and examined him as DW2 before the trial Court. In my considered view, DW2 is a chance witness. The Courts below have rightly rejected the evidence of DW2. It is a case where the accused admits the accident. He has not disputed the fact that the scooter which was driven by deceased Surjit Singh was dashed by his tanker lorry from behind and as a result of which Surjit Singh was crushed to death. The only point that survives for consideration is as to whether there was any rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. I find that there is no reason to reject the evidence of PW3 and PW4 who are the ocular witnesses to the accident. The trial Court has rightly returned the judgement of conviction as against the accused and the appellate Court also has rightly confirmed the judgement. I find that there is no impropriety or illegality committed by the Courts below. Therefore, the revision petition fails and it stands dismissed. 8. The revision petitioner is on bail. The revision petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgement, failing which, the trial Court shall issue non-bailable warrant and send him to jail to undergo the expired portion of his sentence. May 25, 2011 (M.JEYAPAUL) Gulati JUDGE