HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A/279 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgement/order dated 16.02.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, to undergo RI for one year under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code and fine Rs.500, in default whereof, to further undergo RI for 30 days and also to undergo RI for three months and fine Rs.250 under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. THEreafter, the petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid judgement/order of the trial Court. THE same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgement dated 06.03.2003.

(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgements passed by both the Courts below.

(3.) THE arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have already been effectively dealt with by the both the Courts below. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgement, has observed that: THE prosecution proceedings were initiated on the basis of the statement of Dalbir Singh PW3, got recorded to ASI Ashok Kumar, soon after the accident which has been proved on record as EX.PC. Ex.PC. is the first version of the accident coming forth. It is significant to note that in EX.P.C. Complainant Dalbir Singh has specifically stated that after the accident, driver of the bus came down and the disclosed his name as Harpal Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of House No. 43, Tafazalpura, Patiala, driver PRTC. Further, in EX.P.C., complainant stated that the driver also accompanied the injured in Sumo Jeep to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. While in the witness box, the complainant has deposed in verbatim about the number of bus and the name of the driver being disclosed by him when he came down from the bus after the accident. THE fact of name of driver having been recorded by the complainant in his statement EX PC soon after the accident also goes a long way to establish truthfulness of the prosecution version as the statement EX PC had been recorded soon after the accident. THE chances of deliberation and manipulation are to the minimum. Though as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is true that PW4 Jasmer Singh in his cross examination has stated about his reaching the spot at 7.30 and that having not seen the driver but however, solely on account of lapse/fallacy of prosecution witness, here and there, the whole prosecution version cannot be disbelieved. PW3 is the complainant and an eye witness of the occurrence in question. He categorically deposed that he saw the bus coming at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car in question. Thus, there is ground to interfere with impugned judgements of both the Courts below. Accordingly, the judgement/order dated 16.02.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting and sentencing the petitioner which was later on affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal, vide judgement dated 06.03.2003, is upheld.