Joginder Singh v. State Of Punjab
!
"!#$%$&
' () ' * +
!
"
#
+
, -. /0
$% $&&' ( !
( ( ) ( $&&* ( +
$
, - + %&./
$*0 1 + 21 3 $0% $4 $&&4
Section (IPC) Imprisonment (R.I) Fine (in Rs.) In default of payment of fine (imprisonment) 304-A 11⁄2 year 5005/ 11⁄2 month R.I.
6 months 300/- 1 month RI
3.
As per the case of prosecution, FIR was registered on the statement of one Baljinder Singh to the effect that on 21st of April, 2001, he along with his cousin brother namely Paramjit Singh were going towards Maqsudan on their cycles. Paramjit was going ahead of him. When they reached near Red Cross School one three wheeler bearing registration No.PB-08-AA-1673 coming from their behind in a rash and negligent manner struck Paramjit Singh leading to his death. Driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot. 4.
Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by petitioner and thus, convicted him for offences punishable under Section 304-A, 279 IPC.
5.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court found that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 6.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below erred in passing the impugned judgments as the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the petitioner being the one who drove the offending vehicle and fled away from the spot after the accident
took place. Initially name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. Petitioner was not arrested on the spot. No test identification parade was conducted. Petitioner was only identified before the Court by the complainant. He thus contends that the story put-forth by the prosecution lacks credible proof and is doubtful. The prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, 'benefit of doubt' should be given to the petitioner. 7.
Per contra State Counsel submits that the case of the prosecution stands fully proved by PW-3 Baljinder Singh complainant, who in his testimony is unambiguous w.r.t. the occurrence and the involvement of the petitioner in the same. The same stands duly corroborated by way of statement of PW4-Sukhdev Singh, who is an eye-witness to the alleged accident. Qua involvement of the offending vehicle i.e. three wheeler, prosecution has relied upon oral version of PW1 Krishan Kumar, who mechanically tested the three-wheeler and gave his report, which is part of record as Exhibit PA. He thus contends that the presence of Joginder Singh on the place of occurrence has been fully established from the records of the case and, thus, no fault can be found with the judgments passed by the Courts below.
'
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
records of the case.
+ ! + / ! ( ! + 6 .&4 +
10.
Law w.r.t. exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the matters pertaining to offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC already stands settled by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P., (2008) 11 SCC 76, holding as under : "In 2/$ 3 &"
4 !/3$ "5$&$% . $&, - *27.!5!
2.
0 7 8 + ! 6 ! ! 9- : !
! ( ! : !
;
! ( ( 8 + / ! ( ! ! ! ( ( + 4%< '
& * !
.$%% 4
82/ * 32 &"
.%, -
*27.!5!
2.
0 ! 8 +
! ( - + 6 !
! ! ( - + 1 +!. / 4 2 5 &
// 3 3 4!" &
59"$.$, 666- 0 -.$5$& /0
- 666 -0 * 10 ! ( 6 ( 8 +
! : ! ! + =( ! 8 + / ! ( 8 + !
! !
; + + ( - (> - 8 + ! ! 6 ?
1 ! + ( ! + 6 ( + !
- + ( (
+:(
4$
! ( + * 3 $&&' ! (
(
! +5
! ! !7
=
7 ( !
4%
= (
!#!59!.
, - &8 :
$&0 7.
2";!
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No