Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2684 (PNJ)

Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-09-17

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner (herein referred as the accused) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304-A IPC. 2. On 3.11.1999, Karnail Singh along with his son Gurcharan Singh was going to Patran on their bicycles for domestic work. When they were 2-3 killas ahead of their village towards Patran and were approaching the main road, the petitioner came driving tanker No. PB-11F-9135 rashly and negligently and struck against the bicycle of Gurcharan Singh and thereafter it turned turtle. Gurcharan Singh succumbed to his injuries. Nawab Singh who had also came there in a car pulled out the tanker driver from the cabin of the tanker. Therefore, on enquiry, the accused disclosed his identity as Kuldeep Singh. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement Ex.PA made by Karnail Singh, FIR Ex.PW7/B was registered at Police Station Patran. ASI Sham Lal prepared the inquest report Ex.PW7/D, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW7/F, took bicycle and tanker No. PB-11F-9135 into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/A. After arrest of the accused on 4.11.1999 and on completion of the investigation challan against him was presented in the court. 4. The accused was charged under Section 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Karnail Singh complainant (PW1), Nawab Singh (PW2), Gurbaksh Singh (PW3), Dr. Satish Kumar Arora (PW4), Bhag Singh (PW5), HC Piara Singh (PW6) and ASI Sham Lal (PW7). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. 7. In defence, he examined C. Mehal Singh (DW1), Jasbir Singh (DW2) and after tendering into evidence copies of the order Ex.D4, Ex.D6, Ex.D7 and mark DA to DF, closed the defence evidence. 8. The trial resulted into conviction. The appeal filed by the accused was also dismissed. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. The occurrence had taken place during the day time i.e. on 3.11.1999 at 12 noon in the area of village Moviwala. 8. The trial resulted into conviction. The appeal filed by the accused was also dismissed. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. The occurrence had taken place during the day time i.e. on 3.11.1999 at 12 noon in the area of village Moviwala. The presence of Karnail Singh (PW1) is quite natural as he was following his son Gurcharan Singh and both were going to Patran Town for domestic work. The tanker and the bicycle relating to the deceased were also taken into custody from the spot. Both were mechanically tested by HC Piara Singh (PW6) who proved his mechanical report regarding tanker as Ex. PW6/A. Both, Karnail Singh (PW1) and Nawab Singh (PW2) have consistently stated about the manner in which the accident had taken place. Rashness of the accused could well be imagined from the fact that after striking against the bicycle of Gurcharan Singh, the tanker turned turtle in the ditches. The photographs Ex. PW3/A1 to Ex. PW3/A7 and the negatives thereof Ex. PW3/A8 to Ex. PW3/A14 also describe the manner in which the accused while driving rashly and negligently caused the accident. The autopsy on the dead body made by Dr. Satish Kumar Arora, Medical Officer (PW4) also corroborates the prosecution version. It would further be significant to notice that both the courts below have concurrently returned the findings of fact that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the accused. The Appellate Court has also discussed and met with every argument put forth by the accused and also the contradictions which had arisen in the statements of the witness and further reached the conclusion as under:- "Unanimous evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inspires confidence and that was rightly relied upon by the Trial Court for coming to the conclusion that rash and negligent driving of tanker No. PB-11F-9135 by the appellant on 3.11.1999 in the area of village Moviwala resulted into injuries to Gurcharan Singh who succumbed, thereto, on his way to hospital." 11. Thus, in the light of the concurrent findings of fact returned by the two courts below, the scope of interference at this revisional stage could be invited only when the trial court committed such grave error apparent on the face of the record which resulted into miscarriage of justice. Thus, in the light of the concurrent findings of fact returned by the two courts below, the scope of interference at this revisional stage could be invited only when the trial court committed such grave error apparent on the face of the record which resulted into miscarriage of justice. But, no such irregularity, illegality much less perversity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The accused without caring about the people moving by the road side drove the tanker so negligently and on such a fast speed that he after striking against the bicycle allowed the tanker to turn turtle and took the precious life within twinkling of an eye. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the accused does not deserve any concession on account of sentence. 12. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. 13. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. 14. Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. Petition dismissed.