Criminal Revision No.554 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.554 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : October 14, 2010 Sukhpreet Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Two sepoys Gorakh Salve and Devi Dass Vahule succumbed to the injuries on account of the alleged rash and negligent act of Sukhpreet Singh – accused/ petitioner (herein referred as `the accused'). Consequently, he was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under Section 279 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860. His appeal was also dismissed. On 1.2.1998, LC Ganesh Thorath, Sepoy Subhash Patewarna, NK Madan Ramahne, Sepoys Devi Das Vahule, Gorakh Salve, LC Anil Gaikwad, LC Sunil Gaikwad and others were going on a four-wheeler bearing Reg.No.RJ-19G-6156 from Ferozepur to Faridkot. The four- Criminal Revision No.554 of 2004(O&M) [2] wheeler was being driven by the accused, who despite repeated requests made to him, did not slow down the vehicle and when they reached in the area of Police Station Sadiq, he while driving the four-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner allowed the same to turn turtle. Consequently, all the occupants received multiple injuries and were rushed to Civil Hospital, Faridkot, where Sepoys Gorakh Salve and Devi Dass Vahule succumbed to the injuries. Consequently, on the statement of LC Ganesh Thorath, the instant case was registered against the accused and was investigated. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. In an endeavour to have success in the case, the prosecution examined HC Resham Singh (PW1), C.Rajinder Kumar (PW2), Dr.R.K.Goria (PW3), HC Hardip Kumar (PW4), PHG Darshan Singh (PW5), Nayak Narayan (PW6), LC Ganesh Thorath (PW7), ASI Iqbal Singh (PW8) and Dr.Sandeep Kakkar (PW9). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The counsel for the accused Mr.J.S.Brar has contended that the accused was not rash or negligent and he being the driver of the offending vehicle was not solely at fault, but there were other circumstances, which contributed to the accident, therefore, he cannot be held liable. To the contrary, Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has supported the impugned judgment by referring the testimonies of the eye- witnesses as well as the medical evidence. The eye-witness account in this case has been given by Nayak Criminal Revision No.554 of 2004(O&M) [3] Narayan (PW6), who stated that the soldiers were riding the canter bearing Reg.No.RJ-10G-6156, driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner. Then, he was warned not to drive rashly and keep control over the vehicle, but he did not bother and when the canter was half km behind village Sadiq, then the accused in an endeavour to overtake a bullock-cart lost control and fell on the left side of the road. This witness despite being cross-examined heavily withstood to the truthfulness. His credibility and reliability, so also his presence, cannot be disputed. However, a suggestion has been put to him that the accident took place per chance, which also indicates that the accused was at fault. A vehicle unless it is driven rashly and negligently does not slip and it slips only after its driver looses control of it or some hurdle comes in the way and the driver in an effort to save it from the sudden hurdle makes a cut, but nothing such was the position in this case. L.N.Ganesh Thorath (PW7) has fully corroborated the eye- witness account given by PW6. In the present case, the accused had been abundantly cautioned by the witnesses, but he failed to adhere to it. Besides this, Dr.R.K.Goria (PW3), who proved the post mortem report Ex.PB, pictorial diagram Ex.PC, request for post mortem examination Ex.PD, and inquest report of the dead body of Constable Devi Dass as Ex.PE and has clearly deposed that the death of Devi Dass in this case is the result of accident and similar is deposition of Dr.Sandeep Kakkar (PW9), who proved the post mortem report of deceased Gorakh Salve as Ex.PW9/A and pictorial diagram Ex.PW9/B, the taking into possession of this canter vehicle is adequately proved through PHG Darshan Singh (PW5) and memo has been proved as Ex.PG and more so, the registration certificate of the vehicle has been Criminal Revision No.554 of 2004(O&M) [4] proved as Ex.PX vide which vehicle has been deposited in the police station and proved through HC Resham Singh (PW1) and Constable Rajinder Kumar (PW2) through his test report as Ex.PA on 12.02.1998 has clearly opined that there was no fault in the vehicle. There is no delay in lodging the report regarding this accident. HC Hardeep Kumar (PW4), who has proved the DDR entry (Ex.PF) made on the day of accident on the statement of Alok Hole and the Investigating Officer ASI Iqbal Singh (PW8) has proved the finer aspect of the investigations. It would further be significant to mention here that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No such material irregularity or error apparent on the record has been pointed out, which may result into miscarriage of justice, much less failure of justice, therefore, interference at this revisional stage cannot be made. In the wake of the fact that two persons had lost their lives and the few others suffered injuries, I am hesitant to take any lenient view in the matter. The sentence awarded to the accused already appears to be on the lesser side. Petition dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for compliance. October 14, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE