Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2010 Sukhwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Suresh Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Sukhwinder Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections, 279/ 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 9.1.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kharar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.100/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.300/- 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 12.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Rupnagar. Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) 2 Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “On 12.11.2005 HC Gulwant Singh recorded statement of complainant Rajdeep Singh who disclosed to the police that on 11.11.2005, he along with his father Rajjit Singh were going to attend their duties at Mundi Kharar. His father Ranjit Singh was on motor cycle bearing No.PB-65-C-3210 whereas, the complainant was on his scooter and his father was going ahead of him. When they reached near the Gurdwara at about 10.30 am then a truck trolla came from Chandigarh side being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and it struck with the motorcycle of his father, as a result of which his father fell down and received injuries on his head and arms. The complainant noticed the number of the truck trolla as HR-38-G 6751. When the complainant was taking care of his father then the driver of the truck trolla fled away from the spot along with his vehicle. Then the complainant took his father to Civil Hospital, Kharar from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where his father died due to the injuries sustained by him. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the above said truck trolla by its driver. On the basis of this statement the present case registered.” Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. The petitioner was driving a truck bearing registration No.HR-38-G 6751 on the alleged day of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner and struck against the motorcycle driven by the deceased. Both the Courts below, after going through the evidence on record, have ordered the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court in para 10 of the impugned judgment has held as under:- “PW1 Complainant Rajdeep Singh has categorically deposed about the rash and negligent act of the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No. HR-38-G 6751 and the manner in which he hit against the motorcycle of his father as well as the causing of the death of his father. The close scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 would go to show that the rash and negligent of the accused while driving the truck is categorical, distinct and is exhibited. The statement of PW1 is further strengthened by the testimony of PW2 Dr.Raiv Sethi, who has proved the post mortem report of deceased Ranjit Singh Ex.PW2/A and corroborated by the statement of IO PW4 HC Gulwant Singh. The learned counsel for the accused has tried Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) 4 to challenge the testimony of PW1 complainant on the grounds that he has failed to establish the identity of the accused and also failed to connect the accused with the alleged accident, but the perusal of file indicates that there is a supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which the complainant has categorically identified the accused on 18.11.2005 when the accused was arrested by the police. No doubt the complainant has not named the accused in his statement Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. But this is not a serious dent in the prosecution case because the complainant noticed the registration number of the truck and on the basis of the investigation by the police the police traced the accused and accordingly the accused was arrested on 18.11.2005. The complainant on the said date identified the accused and at the relevant time the accused did not object about his identification. It is also pertinent to note here that while appearing in the court PW1 identified the accused and the accused has failed to show any grudge of the police for falsely implicating him in this case. The cross-examination of PW1 further shows that the complainant was aware of the identity of the accused and it cannot be said that the complainant has identified the accused for the first time in Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) 5 the court. In the given circumstances of the present case the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Surindra Narain vs. State of UP 1998 (1) Judicial Reports (Criminal) 98 is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the accused that there are serious discrepancies in the statement of PW1 and PW4, but the learned defence counsel has failed to show any material discrepancies which goes to the route of the case and the discrepancies regarding the variations in the time and the story put forwarded by the IP. PW4 HC Gulwant Singh is not a material discrepancy because PW1 complainant is the sole eye witness who had seen the alleged accident. The normal discrepancies in the statement of PW1 and PW4 are due to the normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and these are bound to occur even in case of honest and truthful witness. The normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party case and the learned counsel for the accused has failed to show material discrepancy in this case and we cannot forget that human memory has limitations. Equally, even the perception of events cannot be photographic. When an incident is described, some Criminal Revision No. 2439 of 2010(O&M) 6 details may be forgotten and some may be ignored as being unnecessary. However, on a later day one can recapitulate consequences of the events and narrate it. Minor variations may actually be indicative of truthfulness, rather than falsehood. It would have been humanly impossible for him to recapitulate the events with microscopic precision. Moreover, the accused has failed to show why he has been falsely implicated in this case and stand taken by the accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not substantiated by any evidence. No other point has been pressed or argued by the learned defence counsel. Resultantly in the light of aforesaid deliberations recorded the prosecution has established that accused was driving the truck bearing No. HR-38-G 6751 in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of Ranjit Singh and accordingly stands convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC.” Since the prosecution had been successful in proving its case, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2010 anita