Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 641 (PNJ)

Krishan Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2005-05-25

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is a criminal revision against the judgment dated 18.4.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 3.5.1990 of the trial Magistrate, whereby he convicted petitioner Krishan Kumar under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.9.1985 at about 6.45 P.M. Jatinder Kumar and his friend Raju were going on a bicycle near Delhi gate. Raju was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle, whereas Jatinder Kumar was driving the bicycle. A tractor bearing registration No. PBF-6093, driven by the petitioner, hit the bicycle. Jatinder Kumar sustained injuries. Raju was run over by the tractor and he died on the spot. Raju was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, by Constable Joginder Singh. The statement of Jatinder Kumar was recorded at the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. Assistant Sub Inspector Balbir Singh sent ruqa, Ex. PW-5/A, on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PW-5/B was recorded. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. A.S. Maan (PW-1), Mulakh Raj (PW-2), Shanti Sarup (PW-3), Daljit Singh (PW-4), Assistant Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, the Investigating Officer (PW-5), Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) Constable Joginder Singh (PW-7) and Head Constable Rachhpal Singh (PW- 8). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no identification parade of the petitioner was done. Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) in his cross- examination, has stated that after he had fallen down, he became unconscious. Meaning thereby that, he did not see the occurrence. He has further stated in his testimony that he regained consciousness after 15 minutes and people standing around, told him the name of the accused. Learned counsel further stated that there are discrepancies in the statements of Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) and the official witnesses. Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) has stated that a tractor dashed against the bicycle from its back side. Assistant Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, the Investigating Officer (PW-5) has stated that the tractor, as per his investigation, hit the bicycle. Learned counsel further stated that there are discrepancies in the statements of Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) and the official witnesses. Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) has stated that a tractor dashed against the bicycle from its back side. Assistant Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, the Investigating Officer (PW-5) has stated that the tractor, as per his investigation, hit the bicycle. Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) has further stated that the face of Raju was disfigured. As per the Medico-legal report, no injury was found on the face of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the discrepancies, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are natural discrepancies. These discrepancies do come about due to the lapse of time. Whether the tractor dashed from behind or from the side, is immaterial, as Assistant Sub Inspector Balbir Singh (PW-5) was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) rightly said that the tractor hit the bicycle from behind. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and perused the record carefully. 7. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) regained his consciousness, after 15 minutes of the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has named the accused clearly. There is no ambiguity regarding identity of the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, after he became unconscious for 15 minutes, and when he regained conscious, some people standing by, had told him the name of the accused. One cannot lose sight of the fact that before Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) lost his consciousness, he had seen the accused and it was only after a few minutes when he regained his consciousness, that it was the persons of the road side, who had confirmed to him that it was the petitioner, who had hit him and run away. There is no motive on the part of Jatinder Kumar (PW-6) to falsely implicate the petitioner for the death of his friend. The discrepancies, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are natural discrepancies, which occur after a lapse of time. The discrepancies are not material. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 18.4.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur qua the conviction of the appellant. 9. The sentence awarded to the petitioner seems to be on higher side. The discrepancies are not material. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 18.4.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur qua the conviction of the appellant. 9. The sentence awarded to the petitioner seems to be on higher side. Occurrence had taken place on 10.9.1985. Criminal revision in this Court was filed on 29.4.1991. The sword of conviction is hanging on the head of the petitioner for the last 14 years. This itself is a punishment. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of six months. During this period, he will keep peace and maintain good behaviour. Bonds be furnished to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur failing which, the petitioner shall undergo the remaining part of his sentence as awarded by the trial Court. 11. With the above modification of the sentence, appeal is dismissed.