Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 552 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-05-02

BALDEV SINGH

body2005
Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Amarjit Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of Dayalpur, District Patiala was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in case FIR No. 350 dated 2.12.1994 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala. He was convicted by Mr. Preeti Sahni, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 15 days under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He filed appeal against the judgment and sentence order, both dated 15.1.2000. His appeal was dismissed on 12.9.2000 by Sh. M.S. Chauhan, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. 2. This revision petition has been filed with the prayer that the judgment of conviction and the sentence order of both the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in the aforesaid case. 3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.12.1994 at about 3.00 P.M., PW Harbhajan Singh was driving his motorcycle, while PW Nishan Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. They were returning from village Munshiwala after meeting their relatives. When they were at a short distance from Bus Adda Barsat, they spotted truck No. PB-12-2200 coming from the side of Patiala City. A cyclist was driving his cycle on the left hand side of the road. The truck driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently. He struck the truck against the cyclist, who received multiple serious injuries and he succumbed at the spot. Harbhajan Singh stopped his motorcycle. He and Nishan Singh both picked up the injured cyclist. He was found Dayal Singh son of Sulkhan Singh who belonged to their village. The truck driver stopped the truck after causing the accident. He fled away leaving the truck at the place of occurrence. Later on the offending truck and the broken cycle of the deceased were taken into possession by the police. PW-Harbhajan Singh gave information of the occurrence to the police by making his statement before Hardeep Singh ASI, who along with other police officials was present in connection with patrolling at Bus Adda, Vazidpur. Statement of Harbhajan Singh is Ex. Later on the offending truck and the broken cycle of the deceased were taken into possession by the police. PW-Harbhajan Singh gave information of the occurrence to the police by making his statement before Hardeep Singh ASI, who along with other police officials was present in connection with patrolling at Bus Adda, Vazidpur. Statement of Harbhajan Singh is Ex. PB. Ex. PB/1 endorsement was made on it by ASI Hardeep Singh and this case was registered. Ex. PB/2 is the copy of the FIR. Ex. PB/3 is the seizure memo of the truck. Registration Certificate, Insurance Cover and the Driving Licence were recovered from the truck. Those were also taken into possession. Ex. PB/4 is the seizure Memo of the broken cycle. Ex. PB/5 is the site plan of the place of occurrence. A photographer was called who took four snaps. Ex. PB/6 is the seizure memo, vide which the photographs and the negatives were taken into possession. Body of Dayal Singh was sent for post- mortem examination. Ex. PW2/A is the post-mortem report. It proves the injuries to him. In the opinion of the doctor, the death took place due to head injury. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. The investigation revealed that petitioner Amarjit Singh was rash and negligent in his driving and he caused the death of Dayal Singh by striking the truck against his cycle. Challan was put in the Court against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 5. Charge was framed against the petitioner, to which he had not pleaded guilty and had claimed trial. The prosecution at the trial had examined PW-1 Jawahar Singh ASI, PW-2 Dr. O.P. Aggarwal, PW-3 Harbhajan Singh, PW-4 Nishan Singh and PW-5 Hardeep Singh SI. They proved various documents on the file. 6. Statement of the petitioner was recorded on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution allegations and complained of his false implicity in this case. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. 7. The petitioner was issued notice to appear. It was reported that he was not residing at the given address. Notice was then given to his counsel Sh. K.K. Goel. Despite personal service, he did not appear to advance arguments in this revision petition. 8. Arguments of Sh. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. 7. The petitioner was issued notice to appear. It was reported that he was not residing at the given address. Notice was then given to his counsel Sh. K.K. Goel. Despite personal service, he did not appear to advance arguments in this revision petition. 8. Arguments of Sh. A.S. Ramgarh, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Punjab State were heard and the record was perused. 9. The evidence of PW-1 Jawahar Singh ASI reveals that he had conducted the mechanical test of the truck. There was no mechanical defect in the truck. Ex. PA is his report. So, it is established that the accident did not take place due to any mechanical defect in truck No. PB-12-2200. 10. Evidence of PW-3 Harbhajan Singh and PW-4 Nishan Singh has been perused. They both are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Their evidence reveals that on 2.12.1994 at about 3.00 P.M. when they were returning on a motorcycle from village Munshiwala, they saw truck No. PB-12-2200 coming from the side of Patiala city. They were at a short distance from Bus Adda Barsat. They saw that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. A cyclist was driving his cycle ahead of the truck. The truck driver struck his truck against his cycle, as a result of which the cyclist received multiple serious injuries and he succumbed at the spot. PWs Harbhajan Singh and Nishan Singh stopped their motorcycle and they picked up the injured cyclist. They found him to be Dayal Singh son of Sulkhan Singh of their village Kherri Musalmana. PW-Harbhajan Singh gave information of this occurrence to the police. His statement Ex. PB was recorded by Hardeep Singh ASI who along with other police officials happened to be present in Bus Adda Vazidpur in connection with patrolling. PWs Harbhajan Singh and Nishan Singh are independent and disinterested witnesses. Their statements receive credence. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court found their testimonies worth credence. Nothing has been pointed out against them, which may discredit their testimonies. 11. Name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR and his particulars/identification marks have not been mentioned therein. The prosecution witnesses, however, identified him for the first time in the Court. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police for identifying the petitioner by them. 11. Name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR and his particulars/identification marks have not been mentioned therein. The prosecution witnesses, however, identified him for the first time in the Court. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police for identifying the petitioner by them. It is a matter of common knowledge that the drivers of the vehicle are not known to the witnesses. Their identity is established only during investigation. In this case, both the prosecution witnesses had seen the petitioner at the spot. He had stopped the truck and then fled away and at that time they had seen him. It was not necessary that test identification parade was to be conducted by the police. The petitioner had left the offending truck at the spot. It was taken into possession along with Registration Certificate, Insurance Cover and the Driving Licence of the petitioner. These documents were found lying in the truck itself. The broken cycle of the deceased was also taken into possession. The truck and the cycle were seized from the spot on the very day of the accident. The documents found in the truck revealed the identity of the petitioner. His name and other particulars were not expected to be known by PW-Harbhajan Singh, who had lodged the FIR. Both these witnesses unerringly identified the petitioner during trial to be the person who had killed Dayal Singh by his rash and negligent driving while driving truck No. PB-12-2200. So, his identity is well established. The evidence of these witnesses also proves rash and negligent driving on his part. 12. The impugned judgments do not call for any interference. The sentence imposed on the petitioner commensurates with the offence committed by him. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Warrants of arrest are ordered to be issued and be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, so that the petitioner is committed to jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.