JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Jaswant Singh has knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition against judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira. Not satisfied with the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga while affirming the findings of the learned Magistrate, dismissed the appeal. Succinctly, the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 2.3.1997 complainant Harjit Singh along with his other relatives was going to Village Singhanwala in a tractor trolley driven by Nandpal. At about 5 p.m. when they reached in the area of Village Janet near Village Kot Ise Khan, one truck trailer bearing no.DNG-0809 driven by petitioner Jaswant Singh at a high speed and struck against the tractor trolley as a result of which Nand Kaur, Gurjant Singh and Matto died at the spot while Criminal Revision No.558 of 2011

(2.) GURDEEP Singh, Bhajan Kaur, Jagdeep Singh, Niranjan Singh and Bhagwant Singh suffered serious injuries. They were taken to the Hospital and lateron Niranjan Singh, Jagdish Singh, GURDEEP Singh and Bhajan Kaur succumbed to the injuries and as such seven persons died in the said accident. Case was registered against the petitioner. Rough site plan of the place of accident was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the petitioner. The petitioner was charge sheeted for an offence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and after closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused petitioner u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water and the same has to be rejected outrightly. It is not disputed that an accident had taken place between the tractor trolley and the truck which was being driven by the petitioner and in the said accident seven persons had died. I have gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and they have fully supported the prosecution case on all material points and have categorically deposed that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Moreover Harjit Singh PW2 during the course of cross examination has categorically deposed that the front tyre of the truck had not burst and rather the truck trailer got entangled into the tractor trolley due to the accident and the suggestion of the learned defence counsel that the accident had taken place due to burst of the tyre was emphatically denied by him. Moreover, the petitioner has not led any evidence in defence to prove that the accident took place due to sudden bursting of the tyre of the truck. He has not examined any Mechanical Engineer or mechanical report to prove that the accident occurred due to bursting of the tyre as a result of which the truck went out of the control of the petitioner. Both the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and as such the same does not call for any interference.