Criminal Revision No. 1600 of 2005 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Vide judgment dated 18.09.2003, passed by the trial Court, Jarnail Singh accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. However, the appeal, preferred by him, was dismissed with the modification in the sentence from two years to one year under Section 304-A IPC. On 21.05.1997, the complainant Dharminder Rana (herein referred as 'the complainant'), a student of 10 +2 class, was to appear as a private candidate in the examination, therefore, he alongwith his friend Kiran Bhushan went on a motorcycle, driven by Kiran Bhushan. One Arun Kumar, who was driving another motor-cycle bearing registration No.PAP- 7858, was going ahead of him and Lakhwinder Singh was sitting on the Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2005 2 pillion. The complainant was following the said motorcycle, driven by Arun Kumar. At about 7:30 a.m., when they reached in the area of village Kot then the petitioner while driving the truck bearing registration No.HIM- 3294 rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn, came from the side of Banga and hit the motorcycle, driven by Arun Kumar and dragged it on the kacha berm. Resultantly, Lakhwinder Singh suffered injuries and died at the spot whereas Arun Kumar died later. After hitting the motorcycle of Arun Kumar, the petitioner had also struck the truck against the motorcycle of complainant and caused injuries to him and his friend Kiran Kumar and thereafter, he struck it against the wall. After the truck was stopped, the petitioner came out and disclosed his name as Jarnail Singh @ Jaila son of Chuhar Singh resident of village Kalma, Police Station Noorpur Bedi. The injured were shifted to the hospital whereas the petitioner slipped away from the spot alongwith his truck. On the aforesaid statement of complainant, the case was registered and investigated. On submission of the report, Court charged the petitioner under Sections 304-A, 279 and 377 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined C-I Mohan Lal (PW1), Balbir Singh (PW2), Davinder Singh (PW3), C.Kamal Singh (PW4), Gurmail Singh, Motor Mechanic (PW5), Dalip Kumar, Photographer (PW6), complainant Dharminder Rana (PW7), Kiran Bhushan (PW8), Dr.Amrik Singh (PW9) and Gurnek Singh (PW10). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Ranjit Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2005 3 Singh (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. However, his appeal was dismissed with certain modifications in the sentence. Still dissatisfied, he has preferred this petition. Arguments, as unfolded by Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, are that the Investigating Officer has not been examined; there are major discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the identity of the petitioner is not established. To the contrary, Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, has submitted that in the light of the fact that two injured eye- witnesses have been examined, there was no further requirement to examine any other witness. The presence of the witnesses cannot be doubted as they themselves had also suffered injuries. The element of rashness and negligence stands duly established as the petitioner after striking the motorcycles dragged one of the motorcycles in the ditches and struck against the wall. Had it been slow then the accident could be adverted. Arguments heard. Record perused. The jurisdiction of this Court regarding interference in the judgment at this revisional stage is very restricted and invocation of revisional powers are permissible only if (a) there was any perversity in the judgment; (b) the judgment has been passed while overlooking the material evidence and (c) there is manifest error apparent on the record resulting into miscarriage of justice and caused any prejudice to the case. In this case, both the Courts below have appreciated every piece of evidence, as led by the prosecution, in the right perspective. Both the injured eye witnesses namely Dharminder Rana (PW7) and Kiran Bhushan (PW8) have duly Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2005 4 stated that the petitioner while driving the truck rashly and negligently came on the wrong side and struck against the motorcycle driven by Kiran Bhushan and dragged same to the ditches and thereafter the truck struck against the wall. Gurmail Singh, Motor Mechanic (PW5) has duly proved the mechanical report which reveals that both the front mudguards of the truck had been pushed inside. That damage indicates that the truck had struck into the wall, therefore, it was only mudguards, which were to be pushed inside. As regards the identity of the petitioner, both the injured witnesses have stated that after the accident when the truck was stopped, the petitioner had come down and disclosed his name as Jarnail Singh and after they were shifted to the hospital, he had slipped away. They have also duly identified the petitioner in the Court, as such the question of mistaken identity does not arise. I do not agree with the contentions, raised by counsel for the petitioner that the testimonies of both the injured witnesses namely Dharminder Rana (PW7) and Kiran Bhushan (PW8) were required to be corroborated by independent source. Both these witnesses have specifically stated regarding the time, place and the manner in which the accident had taken place and have withstood the test of cross-examination. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses which are rather a proof of truthfulness. The arguments that cleaner side of the truck hit the second motorcycle or the motorcycle came in the rear tyre of the truck are not sufficient to prove that the motor-cyclists were negligent when once the petitioner had come on the wrong side and had entangled the motorcycle driven by Arun Kumar. The other motrocycle which was being Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2005 5 driven by Kiran Bhushan (PW8) was bound to entangle in the offending truck. I also do not agree with the contentions, raised by the counsel for the petitioner that actually both the deceased Arun Kumar and Lakhwinder Singh were coming from the link road and they without taking precautions, suddenly came on the main road. In the meantime, the truck came in which they were involved. Therefore, the fault lies with Arun Kumar and not with the petitioner. The aforesaid contention is not approved because the petitioner did not put a single suggestion in this regard to any of the witnesses. Even the petitioner also did not set up the plea that the accident took place when motorcyclists came from the side lane. The site plan, as proved on record, indicates that there was no side lane at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel has submitted that Gurnek Singh (PW10) states that there is a side lane. In this regard, it is observed that mere fact that there was existing some side lane at some distance does not mean that the motorcyclists/injured persons were coming from the side lane at the time of accident. On conspectus of entire evidence, it is apparent that the accident took place near a building in which the truck struck and stopped and the injured persons were on the road at that time and non-setting up on the plea, during the examination of the witnesses and the same having been set up at the fag end of the case in defence, could certainly be said to be an afterthought and cannot be placed reliance. The defence witnesses appear to be highly interested in the petitioner. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal as he was not an eye witness to the occurrence. The documents, as prepared by him at the spot had been proved by the other witnesses. The Investigating Officer, being not an eye witness to the occurrence, if not examined in the given circumstances of the case, Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2005 6 does not effect the other evidence. The ruqa Ex.PW7/A has been proved by the complainant Dharminder Rana (PW7) on the basis of which FIR was recorded; Dr.Amrik Singh (PW9) has proved the post-mortem reports Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/C of Arun Kumar as well as Lakhwinder Singh (deceased); Gurnek Singh (PW10) has proved the recovery of truck bearing registration No.HIM-3294, motorcycle bearing registration No.PAP-7858, recovery with regard to the blood stained earth, motorcycle Hero Honda. Gurmail Singh, Motor Mechanic (PW5) has proved the mechanical reports, therefore, no such material document remained behind as unproved. Even the site plan, which was based on hearsay, need not have been proved as the witnesses while appearing in the witness box, has given the exact situation of the place and the manner in which the accident had taken place. No other argument has been raised. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, since two valuable lives have been lost and two have been injured, therefore, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and the rashness and negligence of the petitioner, I do not deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence further, which had already been reduced by the Appellate Court. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.

16.11.2010 mamta-II (A.N.Jindal) Judge