Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 443 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-03-12

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - Petitioner - Karnail Singh was convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh vide his judgment dated 5.4.2010 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC. 2. The aforesaid judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sardulgarh was affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa vide judgment dated 4.9.2010. 3. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid judgment. Along with this revision petition, an application for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing this revision petition has also been filed. 4. On 25.3.2011, after noticing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed by this Court:- “Notice of CRM No.16568 of 2011 i.e. Application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel states that petitioner has already undergone more than seven months out of a total sentence of one year and that his client may not be averse to giving some more compensation to the LRs of the deceased. Learned counsel prays for two weeks’ time to ascertain the said LRs. Adjourned to 05.04.2011. In the meantime sentence of the petitioner is suspended. Bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Mansa.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the petitioner had obtained bail from this Court by making a submission that he was ready to make more compensation to the LRs of the deceased and had sought two weeks’ time to ascertain the LRs of the deceased. 6. On May 04, 2011, this Court directed for issuance of notice to the LRs of the deceased for 31.5.2011. On 31.5.2011, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought time to implead LRs of the deceased. However, till date, the said order has not been complied with despite the grant of many opportunities. Thus, it seems that a false averment was made before this Court on 25.3.2011 and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner got his sentence suspended. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 8. However, till date, the said order has not been complied with despite the grant of many opportunities. Thus, it seems that a false averment was made before this Court on 25.3.2011 and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner got his sentence suspended. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would show that a concurrent finding has been recorded by both the Courts below that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, death of one Goldy was caused. While affirming the judgment of the trial Court, the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Tract Court, Mansa observed as under:- “16. The allegations against the accused-appellant were that on 26.01.2005 accused was driving canter No.PB10BF 6105 in a rash and negligent manner and he caused death of one Goldy due to rash driving. The case was registered on the statement of Gurdeep Singh. His statement is proved as Ex.PA. Although in his statement Ex.PA, Gurdeep Singh has not got recorded name of Driver but Gurdeep Singh appeared in witness box as PW6. He has deposed on oath that on the next day Karnail Singh accused present in the Court approached him for compromise. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that he has intimated the Police on the date driver approached him. The statement of the complainant that accused Karnail Singh approached him on next day for compromise was nowhere challenged in crossexamination. It is well settled that when statement of witness is not challenged in cross-examination the inference can be drawn that that part of his statement is accepted true. Gurdeep Singh complainant has also identified the accused in the Court. He is having no enmity with the accused and he has no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Although, other eye witness namely Iqbal Singh was not examined but it is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which has to weigh judicial mind. The statement of complainant Gurdeep Singh is sufficient to prove that accused Karnail Singh was driving the canter in a rash and negligent manner. It was stated by complainant Gurdeep Singh that the girl was dragged up to a distance of 10/12 Karams. The statement of complainant Gurdeep Singh is sufficient to prove that accused Karnail Singh was driving the canter in a rash and negligent manner. It was stated by complainant Gurdeep Singh that the girl was dragged up to a distance of 10/12 Karams. Although, complainant Gurdeep Singh has not specifically mentioned that the accused was driving canter in a rash and negligent manner but rashness and negligence of the driver can be established from other things also. The accident took place near the bus stop. The deceased was dragged up to distance of 10/12 Karams. These facts sufficiently show that the accused was not driving the canter in a vigilant manner.” 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any error in the the aforesaid finding. 10. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Since this revision petition has been dismissed on merits, the application for condonation of delay does not survive. 12. SSP, Mansa is directed to apprehend the petitioner and produce him before the competent authority/Court for receiving his remaining sentence. ------------------