In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 831 of 2001 Date of decision: March 21, 2009 Kashmir Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Shivay Dhir, Advocate for Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 3.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Kashmir Sigh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 14.12.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years under Section 304-A IPC. However, the sentence was modified and reduced to one year. The brief resume of facts is that on 19.8.1994, at about 9.30 p.m. Bhoop Singh complainant, Manohar Lal and Dholu Ram were moving towards village Kaliravan on foot, in the meanwhile the petitioner while driving truck bearing registration No.DIL 737 rashly and negligently came from the side of Adampur and struck against Dholu Ram who died at the spot. The petitioner stopped the truck at some distance and thereafter fled after leaving the vehicle at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the complainant, FIR was registered. The case was investigated and ultimately on completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court. Crl. Revision No. 831 of 2001 -2- *** The petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Manohar Lal (PW1), Bhoop Singh (PW2), Dr. Pawan Jain (PW3), Amar Singh (PW4), Shanti Sarup (PW5) and SI Mahender Singh (PW6). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed with the modification in the sentence. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that testimonies of Manohar Lal (PW1) and Bhoop Singh (PW2) cannot be relied upon as there are material discrepancies in their statements. He has further urged that the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the crime as no test identification was got conducted. Having pondered over the arguments, I do not find myself in agreement with the same. Manohar Lal (PW1) and Bhoop Singh (PW2) while appearing in the witnesses have made quite consistent statement with regard to time, place and the manner of occurrence. They have withstood the test of cross examination and nothing could be elicited for creating doubt in the prosecution version. They have categorically deposed that they along with deceased Dholu Ram were going on foot towards village Kaliravan. At about 9.30 p.m. One truck bearing registration No.DIL 737 being driven rashly and negligently came from the side of village Adampur and struck against Dholu Ram who collapsed at the spot. They had categorically identified that the driver of the said truck when he had come down and disclosed his name Kashmir Singh. They further identified him in the court to be person responsible for the accident. Further more, name of the petitioner finds mentioned in the First Information Report recorded on 20.8.1994 at about 12.15 a.m. (on the same night). Even otherwise, the petitioner did not lead any plausible defence in order to prove that he was not driver of the offending truck on the day of occurrence. As such, identity of the petitioner being the driver of the offending truck stands established beyond reasonable doubt. Crl. Revision No. 831 of 2001 -3- *** As regards discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, such discrepancies are bound to occur with the passage of time, however, they do not effect the substratum of the case. These discrepancies normally occur in the testimonies of the truthful witnesses. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it is shorn of any irregularity much less illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. Both the courts below appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. In its elaborate judgment, the appellate court has touched all the material points, as such no interference is called for at my end. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. March 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge