-1- Criminal Revision No.200 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.200 of 2002. Date of Decision: February 05, 2010. Karnail Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Karnail Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous -2- Criminal Revision No.200 of 2002. imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. In this case, petitioner Karnail Singh, who was driving the offending truck at a very high speed and in a negligent manner, crushed Hardev Singh under the front wheels of the truck. Hardev Singh succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by Darshan Singh, son of Hardev Singh (deceased). The eye-witness account in this case was furnished by Darshan Singh (P.W.9). After handing over the cycle to his father Hardev Singh, Darshan Singh had gone to the spare parts' shop of Bharpoor Singh. The petitioner was driving the truck in such a rash and negligent manner that after crushing Hardev Singh under the truck, he damaged two scooters, one moped and two cycles parked in front of the shop. The evidence furnished by Darshan Singh (P.W.9) gets complete corroboration from the other two witnesses i.e Rajinder Kumar (P.W.3) and Gagandeep Singh (P.W.5), who had also witnessed the occurrence. There was no reason for the prosecution witness to falsely implicate the petitioner. In fact, no serious challenge could be made to the veracity of the prosecution case by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. In view of the above, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Section 304-A of the Code. As noticed above, -3- Criminal Revision No.200 of 2002. petitioner Karnail Singh was driving the offending vehicle i.e truck so rashly, negligently and at a high speed that after crushing Hardev Singh under the truck, he damaged other vehicles i.e two scooters, one moped and two cycles parked in front of the shop of Bharpoor Singh. So as to serve as a deterrent to others not to indulge in such like offence, I am of the considered opinion that no no leniency in the matter of sentence is required. The sentence awarded to the petitioner, thus, commensurates with the offence committed by him. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. February 05, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE