Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab

recording the statement of Satnam Singh, first information report, was registered. The truck was taken into possession. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

On his appearance, in the Court, the accused, was supplied Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2009 3 the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

Charge under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Satnam Singh, complainant (PW1), Nasib Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW2), the Investigating Officer, Sanjay Gosai, LDC, Transport Department, STA Branch, Delhi (PW3), Ranjit Singh (PW4), and Dr. G.P. Mangla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana (PW5). Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed.

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. It was stated by him that, on the day of accident, he was coming from Delhi, and was going towards Transport Nagar, on bye pass road, at a normal speed, and the deceased was coming, on his scooter, from the opposite side, on the other elevated road. It was further stated by him that the scooter of the deceased struck against the central verge and came to the lower road. It was further stated by him that, on seeing the scooter, coming towards the road, where the accused was driving the truck, he turned his truck towards the left side, as a result whereof, the same fell down, on the ground, on the left side of the road. It was further stated by him that his truck never came into contact with the scooter of the deceased, nor Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2009 4 the rear tyre of the truck, crushed the deceased, and dragged him. It was further stated by him that he was falsely implicated. He also examined Sudhir Kumar (DW1), and, Balwinder Singh (DW2), in his defence.

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

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide judgement dated 14.11.09.

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

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that there was delay of four hours, in lodging the first information report, which proved fatal, to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the eye-witness, is none else than the real brother of the deceased. He further submitted that, no damage, was found to have been caused, to the scooter from behind. He further submitted that, even the truck, did not come into contact with the scooter of the deceased, nor the accident took place with the same. He further submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration, the aforesaid facts, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2009 5

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Courts below, after taking into consideration, the entire evidence, in its proper perspective, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused/revision-petitioner, was rash or negligent, in driving the truck, which struck against the scooter of Devinder Singh, resulting into injuries, on his person, leading to his death. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality and warrant no interference.

After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that there was complete misreading or misappreciation of evidence, or some material piece of evidence, was not taken into consideration, at the time of decision of the case. The Courts below, after due scrutiny of the evidence of Satnam Singh, eye-witness, PW1, Dr. G.P. Mangla, PW4, Ranjit Singh, PW3, and Nasib Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW2, the Investigating Officer, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck, by the accused, that the accident took place, resulting into the death of the deceased. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross- examined, but nothing of the consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. The Courts Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2009 6 below, also took into consideration, that there was delay of four hours, in lodging the first information report, and that the eye-witness, was none else than the brother of the deceased and came to the conclusion, that these factors, were not sufficient to cast doubt, on the prosecution story. The findings, recorded by the Courts below, regarding the guilt of the accused/revision-petitioner, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2009, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.02.09, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge is upheld. If the revision-petitioner, is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgement.

22.02.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE