BALWANT RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"- for short) vide judgment dated 16.7.1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.12.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. Hence, the present revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, the deceased had himself fallen from the bicycle and had suffered injuries. The Investigating Officer had not been examined by the prosecution.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined eye witness Darshan Kumar. The said witness, while appearing in the witness box as PW-2, has fully supported the prosecution case and has deposed that the bicycle was going on a katcha portion of the road, whereas, the truck, which was being driven at a high speed, struck against the bicycle of Mewa Singh. Sonu was sitting on the pillion seat. The rear tyre of the truck had crushed the head of Sonu resulting into his death at the spot. Mewa Singh appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and has corroborated the statement of PW-2. Mewa Singh had also allegedly suffered injuries in the accident. The statements of PW-2 and PW-3 have been rightly believed by the Criminal Revision No. 827 of 1994 4 Courts below. The said witnesses had no enmity against the petitioner to have falsely involved him in this case. Although the Investigating Officer was not examined in this case, yet the said fact was not fatal to the prosecution case as the prosecution had been otherwise successful in proving its case. The impugned judgments of the Courts below do not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.