KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Karnail Singh has filed the present revision to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur by which the appeal filed by him against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur was reduced from one year to 10 months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) ACCORDING to Tarsem Lal, after purchase of a tempo bearing registration No. PCH-1283 by his father, he started working as a driver thereon. On 27.8.1995 at about 3.30 P.M. he was carrying 8/9 passengers from Hoshiarpur to Kathe Adhikara via Nasrala. When he reached near octroi post at Piplanwala, bus bearing registration No. PB-12A-8515, which was being driven by the petitioner, was seen coming from the opposite side at a very high speed and crashed into the tempo. As a result thereof, Sukhwinder Singh, Hem Lal, Kultar Chand and Roshan Lal received injuries and were removed to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur by the petitioner. Sukhwinder Singh died in the hospital and upon the statement of Tarsem Lal F.I.R. exhibit PE-2 was recorded. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in Court against the petitioner. The trial Court framed charge under Section 304-A, IPC against the petitioner and after recording of the evidence found the petitioner guilty. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the view taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate but after upholding the finding in relation to the guilt, reduced the sentence from one year to 10 months. Still dissatisfied with the result of the appeal, the petitioner has come up in revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that in view of the statement of PW-8, the case of the prosecution regarding the complicity of the petitioner should not be accepted. I have gone through the aforesaid statement and find that though this witness had, in the examination-in-chief, stated that he is not in a position to identify the driver of the bus yet, in the cross-examination, admitted the statement made by him under Section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police. In view of the fact that the petitioner after stopping the bus helped in removing the injured to the hospital and the fact that evidence proving that he was on duty as driver of bus No. PB-12A-8515 has also been brought on record, the argument that his name has been substituted by some one else, who was actually driving the vehicle cannot be sustained and has rightly been rejected by the Courts below.