Criminal Revision No.630 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.630 of 2005 Date of Decision 01.12.2010 Bhupinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.03.2005, passed by the Appellate Court at Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 04.04.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 10.10.1993, he while driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-10-G-9795 rashly and negligently, struck against the motorcycle of Neeraj Batra, as a result of which he received injuries and died whereas Bikramjit sustained injuries. Heard. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it appears that the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, has been appreciated in the right perspective. The prosecution in order to establish the negligence of the petitioner, has examined Jagat Bhushan (PW3), who has testified that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck by the petitioner. He has duly identified the petitioner in the Court. The case is not Criminal Revision No.630 of 2005 2 of doubtful identity. The petitioner in this case had taken the injured to the hospital, though he got recorded his name in the hospital record as Avtar Singh. But Jagat Bhushan (PW3) has specifically stated that he was driving the truck at the relevant time. The truck was apprehended at the spot. It is also established on the record that actually name of the petitioner is Bhupinder Singh and he mis-represented in the hospital record as Avtar Singh. Actually Avtar Singh is the owner of the offending truck and he wanted to confuse his name with the name of the owner of the offending vehicle. The testimony of this witness is consistent with the medical evidence. The mechanical report of the truck as well as the photographs also establish that fault lay with the accused. The re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage. Both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the accident. No such illegality much less perversity or any manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed out which may warrant interference by this Court. Faced with the situation, learned counsel seeks some leniency for the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. In this case, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency for the reasons, firstly he drove the truck so rashly that he took a valuable life and injured the other within the twinkling of an eye, secondly he misrepresented before the hospital authorities that he was Avtar Singh and not Bhupinder Singh but actually he was Bhupinder Singh as identified by the witnesses. Dismissed. 01.12.2010 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge