FARUQ AHMAD Vs. STATEOFPUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 23.07.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which appeal filed by petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura arising out of FIR no. 248 dated 27.12.2004, under Sections 279/337/304A IPC, registered at police station City Rajpura convicting petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 279 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 304A IPC, was dismissed I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below.

(2.) Brief allegations are that, on 24.12.2011 at about 9.40 PM, PWG Subhash Chander, complainant was present at Gagan chowk, Rajpura when he observed that Gurnam Singh (deceased) was driving scooter bearing registration number PB-11C-8182 and was in the process of crossing the chowk when, in the meantime, petitioner-accused came while driving the truck bearing registration number JK-01G-6984 from Sirhind bypass in a rash and negligent manner and could not control the same and hit against the scooter and the scooterist at some distance. As a result of which, scooterist sustained multiple injuries. He was removed to the hospital by the complainant alongwith Constable Karamjit Singh and PHG Kamal Kumar in his Ambulance Van and however, later on Gurnam Singh succumbed to the injuries. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Learned trial court by placing reliance upon the deposition of complainant and eye-witness of the occurrence, PW5 PWG Subhash Chander and other oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. Appeal filed by petitioner-accused against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show to this Court any serious infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence.