Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 497 (PNJ)

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-02-08

NAWAB SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated May 15th, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 11th, 2002 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, were affirmed and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC Rs.500/- 304-A IPC RI for 3 months Rs.700/- 337 IPC Rs.500/- 2. The factual background in nutshell is as follows:- On December 1st, 1996 at about 11 p.m. Police officials Kesar Singh (deceased), Gurmit Singh (PW-6)-injured, Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) author of First Information Report were present on Landra Bridge in connection with Patrol duty. Police vehicle bearing registration No. PB-12-3052 was also parked there. They were on the berm of road and standing in front of their vehicle. In the meantime, truck bearing registration No. PB-11-D-9589 came from behind driven by Gurmeet Sing-petitioner at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. The truck struck against the police vehicle which was in stationary condition at that time. As a result thereof, police vehicle hit Kesar Singh and Gurmit Singh. Kesar Singh died on the spot. Gurmit Singh received multiple injuries. The petitioner managed his escape after leaving the truck there and then. Gurmit Singh-injured was brought to Civil Hospital, Kharar. Information was sent to the Police Station Kharar. Brij Lal, Sub-Inspector (PW-8) reached the hospital and recorded statement of Sukhvir Singh (PW-4) (Exhibit PW-4/A). First Information Report (Exhibit PW-8/B) was recorded under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 IPC. Thereafter, Brij Lal went to the spot. Scene of occurrence was photographed. Site plan (Exhibit PW-8/C) was prepared. The truck was taken into possession. On December 5th, 1996 Joginder Singh owner of the truck produced petitioner in the Police Station. The petitioner was arrested. Driving licence of the petitioner was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PW-8/G). 3. The eye witness account has been rendered by Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) and Gurmit Singh (PW-6). Both of them have deposed about the occurrence as narrated above. Both of them were cross-examined by counsel for the accused-petitioner but nothing material could be elicited from as could shake their evidence. 3. The eye witness account has been rendered by Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) and Gurmit Singh (PW-6). Both of them have deposed about the occurrence as narrated above. Both of them were cross-examined by counsel for the accused-petitioner but nothing material could be elicited from as could shake their evidence. They have categorically stated that on December 1st, 1996 at about 11 p.m, they were on patrol duty and were present on the extreme left side of the road in front of their police vehicle on Landra Bridge. The offending truck came from behind at a fast speed driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner and hit the police vehicle. Kesar Singh died on the spot and Gurmit Singh received multiple injuries. Their evidence is consistent with the site plan (Exhibit PW-8/C) wherein the deceased and Gurmit Singh injured are shown to be standing on the left side of the road. Otherwise too, if the speed of the truck was not high and the driver was not negligent in driving the truck, the impact of the truck on the police vehicle would not have been so strong that it would result in causing fatal injuries to one person and grievous injury to another. Gurmit, in fact is, what in legal parlance is known as stamped witness. He also suffered injuries. The statement of such a witness cannot be discarded lightly. The eye witnesses have not only given a description of the occurrence but also they have brought home the act of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. To cap it all, they had no extraneous reasons to depose falsely nor their testimony could be shaken despite searching questions put in the cross-examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner was not arrested on the spot so, he was not on the staring wheel. The argument is devoid of merit because Joginder Singh owner of the truck brought him to the Police Station and he was accordingly arrested. If he was not driver of the offending truck, the owner would not have produced him before the Police. Had he been falsely implicated in this case, he would have moved the higher authorities but he did not. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any legal infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Had he been falsely implicated in this case, he would have moved the higher authorities but he did not. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any legal infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed. 6. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court.