Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 961 (PNJ)

Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana

2004-08-25

V.M.JAIN

body2004
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This Revision Petition has been filed by accused-petitioner Jarnail Singh against the judgments of the Courts below whereby he was convicted under Sections 337/338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337 Indian Penal Code, imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 338 Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment/order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa an appeal was filed by the accused-petitioner which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide his judgment dated 9.3.1998. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 4.5.1987, at about 10.45 P.M., Joginder Pal PW made statement Exhibit PA before SI Deep chand SHO that on that night after closing his shop, he was having a stroll on Ambala road and at about 9.45 P.M., when he reached near the turning of bye-pass Guhla, he saw a Haryana Roadways bus driven by its driver coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from Ambala side. The driver of the bus struck the same against the left side railing of the said bridge as a result of which the bus fell down and that running fastly, he came to the bridge and started raising Raula that a bus had fallen in the drain and that the passengers be rescued and on hearing his Raula, Lachmanan Giri and several other persons reached there and after going down, he saw registration number of the bus as HRQ-5726 and came to know about the name of bus driver as Jarnail Singh. It was further alleged that out of the passengers travelling in the bus, 8/9 passengers had already expired and other passengers had received injuries. It was further alleged that after leaving Lachhman Giri and other persons at the spot to look after the injured, he was going to the Police Station when on the way, the police met him. It was further alleged that out of the passengers travelling in the bus, 8/9 passengers had already expired and other passengers had received injuries. It was further alleged that after leaving Lachhman Giri and other persons at the spot to look after the injured, he was going to the Police Station when on the way, the police met him. SI Deep Chand sent the said statement Exhibit PA to the Police Station with his endorsement, on the basis of which formal FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Pehowa at 11 P.M. on 4.5.1987. The case was investigated by the police. The accused was arrested in this case and after completion of investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced evidence in support of its case. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence and the defence evidence was closed by Court order. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner, as stated above, vide judgment and order dated 22.11.1997. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide his judgment dated 9.3.1998. Aggrieved against the same, the accused-petitioner filed the present petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. In the present case, 22 persons had died, three persons had sustained grievous injuries and 16 persons had sustained simple injuries. The accused- petitioner was the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus which met with the accident on the fateful day resulting in the deaths and injuries PW-2 Joginder Pal complainant, PW-3 Jai Bhagwan, PW-8 Lachhman Giri and PW-10 Pala Ram had appeared in the witness-box and had deposed about the manner in which the accident had taken place and that the bus was being driven by accused Jarnail Singh. Nothing has come on the record to discard the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses about the manner in which the accident took place and about accused Jarnail Singh, being the driver of the said bus at that time. Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence available on the record, had found that the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently at the relevant time by accused-petitioner Jarnail Singh. After going through the testimony of the witnesses and hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for taking a different view. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submitted before me that the Investigating Officer was not examined in this case and as such the case against the petitioner is not proved. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. If the Investigating Officer was not examined, the same would be of no consequence considering that the eye witnesses who had witnessed the accident had appeared in the witness box and had categorically stated about the manner in which the accident took place and with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by the accused-petitioner. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the non-examination of Investigating Officer would be no consequence. 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the judgments of the Courts below whereby the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced. 8. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this Revision Petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.