Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 5, 2011 Manoj Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and or- der dated 15.9.2008, passed by the learned Sub-Judicial Magistrate, Bala- chaur, by virtue of which the petitioner was convicted under Section 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigor- ous imprisonment for a period of one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- as well as against judgment dated 24.2.2011 vide which the ap- peal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dis- missed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 14.11.2005 at about 10.30 P.M. Kashmir Singh along with his Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) 2 brother Harjinder Singh were waiting for a bus at old bus stand. In the meantime, a tanker bearing No. GJ-6Y-5041 came from Ropar side. Harjin- der Singh gave a signal to the tankar to stop and when Harjinder Singh was boarding in the cabin of the tankar, its driver suddenly drove the tankar, as a result thereof Harjinder Singh fell down and was crushed under the rear wheels of the tankar, as a result of which Harjinder Singh died at the spot. The tankar driver after leaving the tankar ran away from the spot. As per the complainant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tankar No. GJ-6Y-5041. On the basis of this statement a case was registered against the tankar driver. The site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the seen of occurrence was also photographed. The tankar was taken into possession. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Harjinder Singh was performed. Petitioner was arrested by the police and after completion of the investigation the challan was presented against the accused-petitioner. The learned trial Court framed the charge un- der Section 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed by order of the Court. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner pleaded his false implication; however, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the identity of the petitioner is not established beyond any reasonable doubt. Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) 3 He has further argued that even as per the case of the prosecution the driver of the tanker after leaving the tanker ran away from the spot and he was ar- rested only on 18.11.2005 i.e. after four days of the alleged accident and no identification parade has been held after the arrest of the petitioner. There- fore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for causing the ac- cident in question, but both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and as such the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. Undisputedly, Harjinder Singh died in a motor vehicular acci- dent involving tanker No. GJ-6Y-5041. The tanker was found standing at the place of accident and the same was taken into possession by the police from the spot. PW1 Ram Gopal and PW2 Kashmir Singh have categorically deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I find that the accused has not taken specific plea that he was not the driver of the offending vehicle, rather he took the stand that the accident did not take place due to his rash and negligent driving of the tanker and in fact the negligence was on part of the deceased, meaning thereby that he has admitted the factum of accident and in view of this it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner-accused that he was not driving the vehicle in question. Furthermore, both the eye witnesses have identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle which was involved in the accident in question. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and came to the conclusion that the ac- cident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the pe- titioner in which Harjinder Singh has died. Crl. Revision No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error or law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is ample evi- dence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I can re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case. As such there is no justification for this Court to interfere in ex- ercise of its revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any manifest illegality resulting grave miscarriage of justice. As a sequel to my above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge May 5, 2011 Anand