Criminal Revision No.1851 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1851 of 2004. Date of Decision : 25.1.2011. Kamaljit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated August 24th, 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad- hoc) (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur, whereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 24th, 2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Pathankot were affirmed by which petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 2. The factual background in nutshell is as follows: On September 1st, 1999 Surinder Kumar (deceased) and Harsh Joshi (PW-1) complainant-eye witness were going on their respective by-cycles from Amritsar to their village Jakhwar. When they reached in the area of Budha Nagar near the residence of S.D.O. Irrigation, truck bearing No. JK-02-7769 driven by Kamaljit Singh-petitioner came from behind at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and ran over Surinder Kumar. He received multiple injuries. Kamaljit Singh managed his escape from the spot after leaving the truck there and then. Meanwhile, Joginder Pal (PW-2) also reached the spot. Harsh Joshi and Joginder Pal Criminal Revision No.1851 of 2004 2 brought Surinder Kumar to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot. The Medical Officer after giving him first aid referred him to Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. On way to Amritsar, he succumbed to his injuries. On the statement of Harsh Joshi, First Information Report was recorded under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code by Kuldeep Singh, Sub-Inspector. He reached the spot. Scene of occurrence was photographed. Site plan (Exhibit PW-8/C) was prepared. The truck was taken into possession and on September 7th, 1999 the petitioner was arrested. 3. The eye witness account has been rendered by Harsh Joshi (PW-1) who deposed about the occurrence as narrated above. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused but nothing material could be elicited from his sworn testimony to disbelieve his evidence from any angle. He has categorically stated that he along with Surinder Kumar (deceased) was going to his village on by-cycle when the truck came from behind and ran over Surinder Kumar. Apart from the evidence of Harsh Joshi, there is clinching evidence consisting of the photographs (Exhibits P-2 and P- 3) and the site plan (Exhibit PW-8/C) to prove that the occurrence took place on account of negligence of the driver of the truck. A perusal of the photographs and the site plan shows that the deceased was going on the extreme left side and the truck came from behind and hit him. The eye witness has not only given a description of the occurrence he has brought home the acts of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. To cap it all, he had no extraneous reasons to depose false nor his testimony could be shaken despite searching questions put in the cross- examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not on the steering wheel of the truck as is evident from the statement of Kuldeep Singh (PW-8) Investigator when he stated that he arrested Avtar Singh in this case. The argument is devoid of merit in view of the Arrest Memorandum (Exhibit PW-8/A) wherein it is clearly mentioned that Kamaljit Singh was arrested and not Avtar Singh. It could only be a slip of tongue when Kuldeep Singh Criminal Revision No.1851 of 2004 3 stated that he arrested Avtar Singh. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed. 6. The revision petition, is therefore dismissed. 7. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.1.2011 SN