Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1138062
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-23-2014
AppellantMalkiat Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crr no.1231 of 2014 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh ***** crr no.1231 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision : april 23, 2014 ***** malkiat singh ............petitioner versus state of punjab ...........respondent ***** coram: hon'ble mr.justice m.jeyapaul ***** present: mr.harinder singh, advocate for the petitioner. ***** m.jeyapaul, j (oral) crm-m no.12553 of 2014 application is allowed as prayed for. crm-m no.12554 of 2014 petition is dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that the main case was disposed of today. crr no.1231 of 2014 present revision is preferred challenging the judgment and conviction of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court for the offences under section 279 and 304-a of the indian penal code. the case, in brief, of the prosecution is that on 3.1.2005 accused malkiat singh drove the bus bearing no.pb-13-j-6027 in a kukreja ritu 2014.04.25 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crr no.1231 of 2014 (o&m) 2 rash and negligent manner and hit the mini bus bearing registration no.pb-10-ah-9961 carrying some girls for the spinning mill, village haria, tehsil macchhiwara, district ludhiana. many persons including pw-5, amarjit kaur, pw-6, manpreet kaur, pw-7 karamjit kaur, pw-8 sandeep kaur, pw-9, balwinder kaur, pw-10, kuldeep kaur and pw-11 jaspal kaur sustained injuries in the occurrence. as many as 16 persons died in the accident. after investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused malkiat singh. the trial court having adverted to the evidence of the injured witnesses examined as pw-5 to pw-11 in the background of the medical evidence on record, convicted the accused as stated above. the appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on a reappraisal of the evidence on record. learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner would submit that the courts below failed to consider the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini bus. the entire blame has been put on the petitioner who might have partly contributed to the accident. it is his further submission that both the courts below have not properly evaluated the evidence on record. pw-1, prem singh was the complainant in this case. he has categorically deposed that he was travelling in the mini bus driven by his brother. his testimony would establish that the petitioner herein who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner kukreja ritu 2014.04.25 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crr no.1231 of 2014 (o&m) 3 caused the accident and as a result of which many persons sustained injuries and as many as 16 persons died. there is no reason to reject the ocular testimony of pw-1, who completely corroborated his version in the firs.information report. that apart, pw-5, amarjit kaur, pw-6, manpreet kaur, pw-7 karamjit kaur, pw-8 sandeep kaur, pw-9, balwinder kaur, pw-10, kuldeep kaur and pw-11 jaspal kaur were found to be injured witnesses. there is no reason to doubt the veracity of those witnesses who sustained injuries in the accident. they have also categorically deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herein. the medical evidence on record also suggests that the persons who sustained injuries had received injuries in the motor accident and their death also had been caused due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident. in the face of the above materials on record, i am of the view that both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 304-a of the indian penal code. i do not find any impropriety or illegality committed by the courts below in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the accused and, therefore, the revision stands dismissed. april 23, 2014 ( m.jeyapaul ) ritu judge kukreja ritu 2014.04.25 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRR No.1231 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRR No.1231 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : April 23, 2014 ***** Malkiat Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL ***** Present: Mr.Harinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** M.JEYAPAUL, J (ORAL) CRM-M No.12553 of 2014 Application is allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M No.12554 of 2014 Petition is dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that the main case was disposed of today.

CRR No.1231 of 2014 Present revision is preferred challenging the judgment and conviction of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The case, in brief, of the prosecution is that on 3.1.2005 accused Malkiat Singh drove the bus bearing No.PB-13-J-6027 in a Kukreja Ritu 2014.04.25 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1231 of 2014 (O&M) 2 rash and negligent manner and hit the mini bus bearing registration No.PB-10-AH-9961 carrying some girls for the spinning mill, Village Haria, Tehsil Macchhiwara, District Ludhiana.

Many persons including PW-5, Amarjit Kaur, PW-6, Manpreet Kaur, PW-7 Karamjit Kaur, PW-8 Sandeep Kaur, PW-9, Balwinder Kaur, PW-10, Kuldeep Kaur and PW-11 Jaspal Kaur sustained injuries in the occurrence.

As many as 16 persons died in the accident.

After investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Malkiat Singh.

The Trial Court having adverted to the evidence of the injured witnesses examined as PW-5 to PW-11 in the background of the medical evidence on record, convicted the accused as stated above.

The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on a reappraisal of the evidence on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner would submit that the Courts below failed to consider the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini bus.

The entire blame has been put on the petitioner who might have partly contributed to the accident.

It is his further submission that both the Courts below have not properly evaluated the evidence on record.

PW-1, Prem Singh was the complainant in this case.

He has categorically deposed that he was travelling in the mini bus driven by his brother.

His testimony would establish that the petitioner herein who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner Kukreja Ritu 2014.04.25 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1231 of 2014 (O&M) 3 caused the accident and as a result of which many persons sustained injuries and as many as 16 persons died.

There is no reason to reject the ocular testimony of PW-1, who completely corroborated his version in the FiRs.Information Report.

That apart, PW-5, Amarjit Kaur, PW-6, Manpreet Kaur, PW-7 Karamjit Kaur, PW-8 Sandeep Kaur, PW-9, Balwinder Kaur, PW-10, Kuldeep Kaur and PW-11 Jaspal Kaur were found to be injured witnesses.

There is no reason to doubt the veracity of those witnesses who sustained injuries in the accident.

They have also categorically deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herein.

The medical evidence on record also suggests that the persons who sustained injuries had received injuries in the motor accident and their death also had been caused due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident.

In the face of the above materials on record, I am of the view that both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

I do not find any impropriety or illegality committed by the Courts below in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the accused and, therefore, the revision stands dismissed.

April 23, 2014 ( M.JEYAPAUL ) ritu JUDGE Kukreja Ritu 2014.04.25 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh