BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition by Bahadur Singh, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar vide judgment and order dated 31.05.1999, as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide judgment dated 09.04.2002. The petitioner stands convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279 IPC, for five months under Section 337 IPC, for seven months under Section 338 IPC and also for seven months under Section 427 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 304A IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, on 15.06.1996, Major Singh (since deceased) was going on his scooter, whereas his brother Mehar Singh (complainant) and son Simranjit Singh were following him on other scooter. At about 05:30 P.M., they reached near bus stand of Village Bhullar. Offending tractor No. PIB 1120 being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner came from the opposite direction and hit the scooter of Major Singh, who resultantly fell down and suffered injuries. The tractor stopped at some distance. Mehar Singh and Simranjit Singh inquired the name of the tractor driver, who disclosed his name as Bahadur Singh (petitioner). They started attending to Major Singh and sent him in a jeep to hospital and themselves chased the petitioner, who, in the meantime, had fled away. However, they could not trace the petitioner. Major Singh was admitted in the hospital by the jeep driver and Mehar Singh and Simranjit Singh also reached there, but Major Singh succumbed to his injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the petitioner. Mehar Singh lodged FIR by making statement to the police. Necessary investigation followed and petitioner was sent for trial after investigation.

(3.) THE petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - the Cr.P.C.) denied all th incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He stated that he was sitting near the bus stand for repair of tractor as its tyre had got burst. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in his defence.