IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2513 OF 2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 17, 2011
Sahib Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has filed this revision against the order of
his conviction for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and the award
of RI for two years.
As per the prosecution story, Satpal Singh and Faqir
Singh were proceeding on a Motor Cycle No.PB-42A-6031, followed
by Amrik Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of Chabba, Police
Station Gulha. When these two separate Motor Cycle riders reached
in the vicinity of Gobind Rice Mill, Samana, a Truck being driven at a
high speed, took a turn towards right and, thus, rammed against the
Motor Cycle driven by Satpal Singh. Satpal Singh and Faqir Singh
both fell down. Amrik Singh and Gurbax Singh have stopped their
Motor Cycle and found Satpal Singh suffered multiple injuries. Faqir
Singh had also suffered multiple injuries. Satpal Singh died at the
spot. Amrik Singh had identified the Truck driver as Sahib Singh, who
after the accident, managed to escape from the spot. Faqir Singh
was taken to Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2513 OF 2011 (O&M) :2:
case was registered leading to conviction. The appeal filed by the
petitioner was also dismissed.
Counsel says that the eye-witness account is a made up
story. The counsel further contends that actually there was ample
damage to the Motor Cycle, which would show that basically it is the
negligence of the Motor Cycle rider that he came and struck into the
truck. Except for baldly asserting that it is false story projected by the
prosecution, nothing else is pointed out as to how it is a false case.
The case of the prosecution is supported by eye-witness account. It
is not possible to disbelieve it merely because the petitioner says that
it is a made up story. The aspect that negligence was on part of the
Motor Cycle rider would also not advance the case of the petitioner
as contributory negligence is no defence in criminal liability to assess
the liability under Section 304-A IPC. I am, thus, not inclined to
interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
October 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE