LALIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM -32760 -2014

(2.) IN brief, case of the prosecution is to the effect that case has been registered on the statement of complainant -Lalit Kumar, which was recorded by ASI Naresh Kumar, wherein the complainant stated that on 01.01.2006, he along with his brother Raj Kumar was present in the Lovely Ice Cream Factory and their brother -in -law (Jeeja) came to the factory. Raj Kumar came back to the home 10 -15 minutes before them. He went on foot, whereas, Lalit Kumar and brother -in -law went on scooter bearing No.PB -08 -A -3956 Bajaj Chetak. He himself was driving the scooter and Surinder Kumar was pillion rider. At about 9.15 p.m., when they reached near Shri Guru Ravidass Mandir, Buta Mandir, Jalandhar, they saw their brother was going on foot to the house. He was at a distance of about 20 feet ahead of them. In the meantime, a Santro car bearing No.PB 08 -AG -7271 of silver colour, came from Wadala side, which was being driven by a Hindu Gentleman and he was aged about 30 -35 years. While driving so rashly and negligently, without giving horn, he struck his car into Raj Kumar from backside. Due to which, Raj Kumar received multiple grievous injuries and he became unconscious. They arranged for a vehicle and took Raj Kumar to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where, doctor declared him dead. Complainant stated that said accident was witnessed by himself as well as by his brother -in -law Surinder Kumar. Driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot along with his car. On the basis of said statement, a case was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was set into motion. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the trial Court. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused -respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Sohan Lal as PW 1, Kuldip Rai as PW 2, Pawan Kumar as PW 3, Dr. Breena as PW 4, complainant Lalit Kumar as PW 5, Surinder Kumar as PW 6, ASI Naresh Kumar as PW 7, Nirmal Kapur, Jr. Assistant, RTO, Jalandhar as PW 8 (wrongly mentioned as PW 7), HC Avtar Singh as PW 9 (wrongly mentioned as PW 8), HC Amarjit Singh as PW 10 (wrongly mentioned as PW 9), C. Jagga Singh as PW 11 (wrongly mentioned as PW 10) and thereafter evidence of the prosecution was closed by court order. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence against him was put to him which he denied and pleaded false implication. No witness in defence was examined by the respondent -accused. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Against that, the accused preferred an appeal which has been accepted by the lower Appellate Court thereby reversing the findings of the trial Court and acquitting the accused of the charge framed against him. Hence, this revision petition.