Criminal Revision No. 596 of 2008(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 596 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 7.10.2010 Bagga Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Bagga Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections, 279/ 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 16.5.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and three months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No. 596 of 2008(O&M) 2 Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “On 22.2.1994, ASI Balbir Singh along with some other police officials was on patrolk duty and was present at Batala Road, Amritsar, where Surjit Singh complainant came and got recorded his statement to the effect that he is resident of village Jethuwal and has three sons. Elder is namely Sarwan Singh, Jasbir Singh and yougest is Harsharan Singh. His son Jasbir Singh is doing business of slaughter as well as also doing the business of bore, at village Jethuwal. On 22.2.1994, he along with his son Jasbir Singh and nephew Gurmej Singh came to Amritsar for purchase of bore articles at about 8 pm. He along with his son Jasbir Singh and nephew Gurmej Singh was going on cycles towards Hussainpura Chowk. Jasbir Singh was going alone on his cycle, whereas, he and his nephew Gurmej Singh were following Jasbir Singh. When they reached near the bridge, a truck bearing registration No.PB-08-F-2865 which was being driven rashly and negligently, at a very high speed, came the side of Majitha. The said truck hit the cycle of his son and also struck upon the wall of the bridge, as a result of which, his son Jasbir Singh died at the spot. The truck driver was aged about 40 years of the Criminal Revision No. 596 of 2008(O&M) 3 height of 5'-10”. The truck driver ran away from the spot. Ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was registered.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no identification parade was conducted in this case. The witnesses had merely identified the petitioner for the first time in the Court and hence, no reliance could be placed on the statements of the witnesses. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that PW-5 Gurmej Singh already knew the petitioner before the accident and had duly identified the petitioner at the time of accident. Moreover, the truck driven by the petitioner had been recovered from the spot. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. PW-4 Surjit Singh and PW-5 Gurmej Singh are the eye witnesses qua the occurrence. Both the witnesses have categorically deposed that the petitioner was driving the truck in question and had struck the same against the deceased, who was riding a bicycle. PW-5 Gurmej Singh has further deposed that he knew the petitioner before the accident. The truck in question was recovered from the spot. A perusal of the site plan Ex.PW2/7 and the photographs placed on record reveal that the truck had gone on the wrong side of the road and after striking against the deceased, Criminal Revision No. 596 of 2008(O&M) 4 had struck against the wall of the footpath. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led on record, has given sound reasons while ordering the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279/ 304-A IPC. The Appellate Court has also given sound reasons while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2010 anita