- (1.) THIS revision has been preferred by Kewal Singh, petitioner/accused against his conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 279, 304A and 337, IPC. He was sentenced by JMIC Bathinda, vide judgment dated 14-7-2005 as under:- (See Table below)
(2.) IN the appeal preferred by him, the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Bathinda, reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him under Section 304A, IPC from one year six month to ten months. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Sandip Kaur deceased, daughter of Bira Singh complainant P.W. 1 and Kinderpal Kaur injured were the students of 6th Class. On 6-11-2001 both of them were brought to Bathinda to the house of Mithu Singh master. Thereafter all of them were going towards bus stand to board the bus. When at about 10.15 a.m. they reached near the thermal canal, the accused came driving canter make Tata 709 at a very fast speed, without blowing any horn and while driving the same negligently brushed the side thereof in the said girls, as a result of which Sandip Kaur died at the spot itself and Kinderpal Kaur received the injuries. The accused stopped the canter and after alighting from the same disclosed his name, parentage and address and after seeing that one of the girl had died, sliped from the spot. Kinderpal Kaur was sent to the hospital for treatment with Balwinder JUDGEMENT_3004_CRLJ_2011Image1.jpg ths ? 1000/- RI of 30 days Singh whereas the complainant stayed with the dead body of his daughter. After coming to know about this accident Balwant Singh SHO P.W. 5 came to the place of accident and recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PA. After making his endorsement Ex. PA/1 upon the same, he sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded against the accused under Sections 279,304A and 337, IPC. The SHO prepared inquest report Ex. PB in respect of the dead body and sent the same to Civil Hospital along with application, for post-mortem examination. Bhola Singh, photographer, P.W. 6 was called to the spot, who took photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P14. The SHO collected the blood from the spot, which was put in a small box and was converted into a parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal 'PS'. The same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W. 5/A. The said canter which had registration No. PB-03D- 6412 and was lying parked near the place of accident, was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. P.W. 5/B. The SHO prepared the rough site plan Ex. P.W. 5/C of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes. Kinderpal Kaur was medically examined by Dr. Niranjan Lal P.W. 3, who found three injuries on her person and the same were detailed in the M. L. report Ex. P.W. 3/A. The autopsy on the dead body of Sandip Kaur was conducted by Dr. S. S. Malik P.W. 7, who found eight ante-mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of the death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries, which were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. In the course of investigation the accused was arrested and the statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The accused produced his driving license and registration certificate of the canter before the SHO and those were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W. 5/B. On 8-11-2011, the canter was mechanically tested by Sandeep Kumar constable Mechanic P.W. 3, who found the same to be in mechanical order and gave his report Ex. PC. After the completion of the investigation the challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed aforesaid offence. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt prosecution examined Bira Singh P.W. 1, Balwinder Singh P.W. 2, Dr. Niranjan Singh P.W. 3, Sandeep Singh P.W. 3, Jarnail Singh P.W. 4, SI Balwant Singh P.W. 5, Bhola Singh Photographer P.W. 6 and Dr. S. S. Malik P.W. 7. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that no such accident was caused by him and at the instance of complainant, the police made a false case against him. He was called upon to enter on his defence, but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.;