Jagtar Singh v. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab

Kuldeep Singh, complainant, an FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the truck, in question, was taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427 IPC, was framed, against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Bant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-1), Kuldip Singh, complainant, (PW-2), Dr. Pawan Sood, Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, V. Sarabha,(PW-3), Shamsher Singh, Photographer,(PW-4), Bhushan Kumar, Senior Clerk, (PW-5), Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Officer, (PW-6), Dr. Jaspal Singh, Professor of Surgery, (PW-7), Surjit Crl. Revn. No.3266 of 2009 --4-- Singh son of Nazar Singh, (PW-8), Jaswinder Singh son of Malkiat Singh, (PW-9), Avtar Singh s/o Harnek Singh, (PW- 10), and Karamjit Singh son of Bachan Singh, (PW-11). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.

The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence, was led, by the accused.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred, by the appellant, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.11.2009, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana.

Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision-petition has been filed, by the revision-petitioner.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case carefully.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, for the offences aforesaid. Even Crl. Revn. No.3266 of 2009 --5-- otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same. It is settled principle of law, that the Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, were perverse and illegal, being based on mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence or on account of non- consideration of material piece of evidence. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Kuldeep Singh, complainant-cum-injured,(PW-2), Dr. Pawan Sood, Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, V. Sarabha,(PW-3), Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Officer, (PW-6), Dr. Jaspal Singh, Professor of Surgery, (PW-7), Surjit Singh, eye witness, (PW- 8), Jaswinder Singh son of Malkiat Singh, (PW-9), and Avtar Singh s/o Harnek Singh, (PW-10), were right in coming to the conclusion that the same was cogent and convincing and sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. The Courts below were also right, in placing reliance, on the cogent and convincing evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused drove the truck aforesaid, in a rash or negligent manner, as a result whereof, the accident took place, resulting into injuries on the person of Shiv Charan, and death of Rajpal alias Gabbar, and, thus, committed the Crl. Revn. No.3266 of 2009 --6-- offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, are neither perverse nor illegal. Under these circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, is made out to interfere with the judgment of conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner has been facing the criminal proceedings w.e.f. 10.09.1998, the date when the FIR was registered against him and his sentence be reduced suitably. The submission of the Counsel for the revision- petitioner appears to be correct. Since the revision-petitioner, has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 11 years, he must have suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. It is, in my considered opinion, a fit case, in which the sentence awarded to the revision petitioner, should be reduced suitably.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The Registry is directed to comply with the order immediately. March 04,2010 dinesh/preeti (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE