Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 506 (PNJ)

Kewal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-03-18

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-2-2002, rendered by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 8-6-1999, and the order of sentence dated 9-6-1999, rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, sangrur, convicting the accused (now revision-petitioner), for the offence, punishable under Sec.304-A of the Indian Penal code and awarding him sentence to undergo ri for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 , in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of one month. 2. The First Information Report, in this case, was recorded on the basis of statement ex. PC, made by Gajjan Singh, complainant. According to the allegations, contained in the FIR, on 18-2-1997 at about 5.00 p. m. Gajjan Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Balbir singh were standing in-front of his (Gajjan singhs) house, situated in Krishan Pura basti, on link road. They were talking to each other. Shakuntala Devi along with his grandson Deepu, was standing near them. In the meanwhile, bus No. PB-11-E-9608 of PRTC, barnala Depot, came at a very high speed, without blowing horn, from the side of nankiana Sahib road and it was to go towards Bus Stand, Sangrur. The driver of the bus by driving the same, in a rash manner, struck the left front side of the same, against his wife Shakuntala Devi, as a result whereof, she fell down on the ground and bus overran both her legs. Her left leg was fractured. She also suffered other serious injuries. Deepu came under the bus and died at the spot. The driver of the bus stopped it and, on enquiry, he told his name to be kewal Singh and conductor thereof, disclosed his name as Harbhajan Singh. Gajjan singh left Balbir Singh at the spot, and took shakuntala Devi to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, with the help of Gurcharan Singh and got her admitted there. Shakuntala Devi succumbed to the injuries. During the course of investigation, the site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused Was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied Upon by the prosecution. Shakuntala Devi succumbed to the injuries. During the course of investigation, the site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused Was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied Upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sec.304-A, IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Om Parkash, (P. W.1), Gajjan singh, complainant, (P. W.2), Gurcharan singh, eye-witness, (P. W.3), Karamjit Singh, (P. W.4), Jangir Singh, (P. W.5), S. S. Oberoi, (P. W.6), Raminder Kaur, (P. W.7), Malkiat singh, (P. W.8), Jawahar Singh, (P. W.9), Dr. Balwinder Singh, (P. W.10), C. Jarnail Singh, (P. W.11) and Parminder Singh, Assistant sub Inspector, (P. W.12 ). Thereafter, the trial court closed the prosecution evidence, as no other witness appeared, despite granting a number of opportunities. 5. The statement of the accused, under sec. 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. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant, which was dismissed vide order dated 14-2-2002, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, sangrur. 8. Still dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the evidence and record, of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the driver of the bus was rash or negligent, in driving the same, as a result whereof, the accident took place, leading to the death of Shakuntala devi and Deepu. The submission of the counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The submission of the counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Gajjan singh, complainant-cum-eye-witness, (P. W.2), in clear-cut terms, stated that shakuntala Devi, his wife, along with his grandson Deepu, aged about one year, who was in her lap, was standing, on the road side, when the bus, in question, being driven rashly or negligently, struck against them, resulting into accident and leading to the death of Deepu and injuries to her (Shakuntala Devi ). He also stated that ultimately, Shakuntala Devi also succumbed to the injuries. Had the driver of the bus, being not rash, the bus would not have struck against the lady, who was having her grandson, aged about one year, in her lap, standing on the road side. The accident speaks for itself. The Courts below, on the correct appreciation of cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy evidence of Gajjan Singh, complainant-cum-eye-witness, (P. W.2), and gurcharan Singh, another eye-witness, (P. W.3), who corroborated the statement of gajjan Singh, Dr. Om Parkash, (P. W.1), who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead body of Deepu, Dr. Karambir Singh, senior Medical Officer, (P. W.4), who declared shakuntala Devi unfit to make statement, and Dr. S. S. Obroi, (P. W.6), who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shakuntala Devi, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the driver of the bus was rash or negligent in driving the same, resulting into the accident and leading to the death of Shakuntala Devi and Deepu. It is settled principle of law, that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings of guilt, recorded by the courts below, were either illegal, or perverse or erroneous, on account of complete misreading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, in context with the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not indicate that the findings of guilt recorded are either perverse or illegal or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fall, and the same stands rejected. 11. No doubt, the Investigating Officer was not examined, in this case, as he could not be produced by the prosecution, despite granting last opportunity. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fall, and the same stands rejected. 11. No doubt, the Investigating Officer was not examined, in this case, as he could not be produced by the prosecution, despite granting last opportunity. Ultimately, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence. However, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in this case, did not, in any way, cast any doubt, on the prosecution case, especially when it was fully proved from the evidence of Gajjan Singh, complainant-cum-eye witness, (P. W.2), Gurcharan Singh, eyewitness, (P. W.3) and the evidence of the doctors, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies. The counsel for the revision-petitioner, could not point out, as to what prejudice was caused, to the accused, on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. In the face of other cogent and convincing evidence, produced by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, paled into insignificance. 12. No other point, was urged, by the counsel for the parties. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 8-6-1999 and the order of sentence dated 9-6-1999, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment dated 14-2-2002, rendered by the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, are I upheld. 14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment promptly, in accordance with the provisions of law, on receipt of a copy thereof. Petition dismissed.