CIVIL APPEAL 208 of 2002 on 25 November 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Revision No.208 of 2002 Decided on 16.3.2009.

Daljit Singh @ Dalla

Versus State of Punjab

Present : Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral)

This is revision petition by Daljit Singh, who stands convictedand sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Roopnagar videjudgment and order dated 25.11.1998 as affirmed in appeal by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Roopnagar vide judgment dated 23.1.2002. Thepetitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under :-

i)Under Section 279 IPC To undergo RI for three months, to pay fineof Rs.100/- in default to pay fine to furtherundergo RI for 15 days.

(iii) Under Section 304-A IPC

To undergo RI for one year, to pay fine ofRs.500/- in default to pay fine to furtherundergo RI for one month.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution case is that on 22.6.1997 Nachattar Singh complainant witnessed the accident caused by a truck being driven rashlyand negligently and hitting a scooter with two riders namely Avtar Singhand Devinder Singh. Both of them fell on the road whereas the scooter wasdragged to a distance of 8-10 karams. Avtar Singh succumbed to hisinjuries on the same day and Devinder Singh succumbed to his injuries on25.6.1997. Nachattar Singh lodged FIR, stating that the accident wascaused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck but he could not seeregistration number of the truck because the driver fled away with the truckafter causing the accident. However, on 22.6.1997 itself, one ParveenKumar witness made statement to the police that he and Bahadur Singhwhile going on a scooter had witnessed the aforesaid accident, which wascaused by truck No.PAT 9323 being driven rashly and negligently by DaljitSingh-petitioner. These two witnesses, on their scooter, even chased theaforesaid truck which, however, escaped. Bahadur Singh also made similarstatement during investigation. On completion of investigation, thepetitioner was sent for trial.

Prosecution in support of its case, examined nine witnesses.Nachattar Singh complainant stated about the accident as per versioncontained in the FIR lodged by him without mentioning the registrationnumber of the offending truck or the name of its driver. However, ParveenKumar (PW-4) and Bahadur Singh (PW-5) deposed that the petitioner bydriving the aforesaid truck rashly and negligently caused the aforesaidaccident and they even chased the truck after accident. They identified thepetitioner in the Court to be the driver of the offending truck. Dr.Neeraj Gupta (PW-1) and Dr.Surjit Singh (PW-7) stated about post mortemexaminations of Avtar Singh and Devinder Singh respectively. ASI SuchaSingh (PW-9) stated about investigation of the case.

The petitioner, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) denied all the incriminatingcircumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence andclaimed to be innocent. He alleged that on 22.6.1997 after loading cementfrom Ambuja Factory, Ropar he had gone to Sidhwan Bet and after un-loading the cement, he started back from there at about 1'o clock andreached his village at about 6 o'clock and the accident was not caused byhim. In defence, he examined Jaswinder Singh (DW-1) and Nirbhai Singh(DW-2), who supported his version.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thefile.

Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence haveconcurrently recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The saidfinding is neither perverse nor illegal so as to warrant interference inexercise of revisional jurisdiction. Parveen Kumar and Bahadur Singh areindependent eye-witnesses. There is no reason for discarding theirstatements. Statement of Parveen Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wasrecorded on the date of accident itself and in that statement he alsomentioned the name of Bahadur Singh being the eye-witness along with himon the same scooter. Both of them even chased the offending truck.Registration number of the offending truck as well as name of its driver being Daljit Singh was mentioned in the said statement of Parveen Kumar.Statements of both these eye witnesses are cogent and credible. Theyidentified the petitioner in the Court also to be driver of the offending truckat the time of accident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended thatNachattar Singh complainant, has neither stated the registration number ofthe offending truck nor identified the petitioner to be driver thereof.However, he mentioned in the FIR itself that he had not seen registrationnumber of the offending truck being at some distance. However, ParveenKumar and Bahadur Singh have stated the number of the offending truck aswell as the petitioner being driver thereof at the time of accident. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that both these witnesseswere introduced later on and Parveen Kumar stated in cross-examinationthat he had not made any statement to the police whereas Bahadur Singhhas made some improvements in his statement in the Court over hisstatement made to the police. However, statements of these two witnessescannot be discarded merely on the basis of these contentions. On the basisof statement made by Parveen Kumar, the petitioner was arrested and itshows that such a statement had been made by Parveen Kumar. ASI SuchaSingh also stated that he had recorded statement of Parveen Kumar on22.6.1997 itself. As regards alleged improvements in the testimony ofBahadur Singh, he could not be expected to make a parrot like statement.There is no material improvement in his statement in Court from hisstatement made to the police.

Arguments

Defence evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. It ispetitioner's own version that he was driver of truck No.PAT-9323 on thedate of accident. Jaswinder Singh (DW-1) stated that on 22.6.1997, 300bags of cement were received in the store. However, in the relevant entry,neither registration number of the truck nor name of its driver had beenmentioned. Nirbhai Singh (DW-2) stated that the cement bags were loadedin truck No.PAT-9323 for 21.6.1997 and the same were delivered in thestore on 22.6.1997 vide entry Ex.D-3 which reveals that the truck wasunloaded at 12-15 a.m. and thereafter the petitioner was driving the truckback from Sidhwan Bet to Ropar and it appears that the accident tookplace during the said journey on 22.6.1997 at about 2.00p.m. It is thusmanifest that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to bring home the chargeagainst the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the defence evidencealso supports the prosecution version. In any event, the defence evidencedoes not go against the prosecution version in any manner.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in finding ofconviction recorded by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the convictionof the petitioner is affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that sentenceof the petitioner be reduced because the accident took place about twelveyears ago. However, I find no merit in this contention because hands of thepetitioner on the steering wheel of the truck pre-maturely snatched the livesof two persons. Sentence of imprisonment for one year for offence underSection 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in such a case cannot be said to be excessive by any standard and the said sentence, therefore, does not warrantany reduction.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in theinstant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bondsor shall be arrested to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.

( L.N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

March 16, 2009sv