Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1992 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1992 Date of Decision: 17.3.2008. Balwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Petitioner Balwinder Singh son of Faqir Singh, resident of Baloor Khan, Police Station Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Jalandhar, was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, under Section 304-A IPC to undergo one and a half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default one month rigorous imprisonment for causing death of Mohan Singh, Kishan Singh, Subhash Chand and Karnail Singh. Case FIR No. 67 dated 14.5.1989 was registered at Police Station Ropar under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC at the instance of Dalip Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Bal, Police Station Ropar. Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1992 2 It was stated in his statement Ex.PW.8/A that on 14.5.1989 at about 6.30 P.M. complainant was going to see Gurdev Kaur, his niece, who was admitted in Primary Health Centre, Bharatgarh, Mohan Singh, husband of her niece, on a bicycle was going along with him in order to see and take meals for Gurdev Kaur. At Bunga Sahib, Mohan Singh had boarded in truck bearing No. PAT-5976, which was driven by the petitioner. It is stated that at about 7.45 P.M. when the complainant reached near the Railway Station, Bharatgarh, truck No. PAT-5976 crossed him. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is stated that the truck struck against the tree, as a result of which cabin and body of truck was badly damaged. The accused has also stated to have received injuries. Occupants of the truck i.e. Mohan Singh Kishan Singh, Subhash Chand and Karnail Singh, who were sitting along with the petitioner suffered injuries and as a result Mohan Singh, Kishan Singh and Subhash Chand died at the spot, while Karnail Singh injured expired in the hospital lateron. The occurrence was witnessed by Deva Singh, Member Panchayat, also. PW.1 Dr. Suresh Chadda conducted autopsy on the body of Subhash Chand. PW.2 Dr. V.K. Goel conducted autopsy on the body of Mohan Singh. PW.3 Dr.P.K.Sharma conducted autopsy on the body of Kishan Singh. PW.4 Dr. Jasbir Singh conducted autopsy on the body of Jarnail Singh alias Karnail Singh. PW.5 Tarlochan Singh mechanically tested the truck and gave Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1992 3 his test report. Deva Singh, eye witness, appeared as PW.7 and Dalip Singh complainant appeared as PW.8. PW.10 Moharrir Head Constable Gulzar Singh handed over the blood stained clothes of the deceased to the Investigating Officer. PW.11 Jagjit Singh, Sub Inspector, had investigated the case. All incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. He stated that he has been falsely implicated. Mrs.Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner at the outset has stated that she will not contest the testimony of PW.7 Deva Singh and PW.8 Dalip Singh as both the Courts below have placed reliance upon them to convict the petitioner. The argument that as to why Dalip Singh had not accompanied Mohan Singh, husband of his niece Gurdev Kaur, in the truck and as to why Pritam Singh owner of the flour mill (accident took place near flour mill), was not examined, had not been accepted by the two Courts below. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Deva Singh, which was made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”). This statement cannot be relied upon as witness was not confronted with the statement made by him before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the Tribunal and the Criminal Courts perform their function, and adjudicate in different spheres and rely upon the statements made before them. Statement made before the Tribunal per-se cannot be relied in a Criminal Court unless the same is proved and the witness is confronted. Statement made before the Tribunal, at best can be termed as pervious statement, available to confront the witness. Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1992 4 At this stage, Ms. Peshawaria prayed that since the occurrence had taken place in the year 1989, about 19 years are going to lapse and the sentence of petitioner should be reduced to already undergone as at the time of occurrence, he was aged about 30 years. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that in the present case due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner, four persons had died. Taking totality of circumstances, sentence of petitioner is reduced from one and a half year to one year. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 17, 2008 “DK”