SAT PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was awarded six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently and the period already undergone during investigation and trial of the case was directed to be set off.

(2.) The facts emerging from the judgments of both the Courts below are, that on 9.5.2002, the officials of Punjab State Electricity Board (P.S.E.B.) went to village Sohana for attending to a complaint of fluctuation of electricity. They were returning after checking the transformer. Parmod Sharma (deceased), Junior Engineer (J.E.-1) was riding on his scooter No. CHT-2872. He 15/20 Karams ahead of Hero Honda motorcycle No. PBR-9112 of Anil Sharma, Junior Engineer (J.E.) (PW-1)-complainant and Tarwinder Singh (PW-2) was the pillion rider. It was about 7.00 p.m. that Parmod Sharma, was hit from behind by a speeding truck No. PB-12D-9581, driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. The scooter turned trutle and Parmod Sharma, the victim was dragged for some distance. The victim succumbed to the injuries and died at the spot. The photographs of the scene of occurrence were taken and autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was also conducted. FIR was registered on the statement of Anil Sharma- complainant. The prosecution examined both the eye-witnesses, namely; Anil Sharma-complainant as PW-1 and Tarvinder Singh ad PW-2 and they made consistent statement to prove the incident cause by the rash and negligent driving of heavy vehicle by the petitioner.

(3.) I have learned petitioner's counsel, learned State counsel and also perused the judgments of the Courts below and do not find any ground for disturbing concurrent findings of conviction by the Courts below.