SAHIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2011-10-102
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 17,2011

SAHIB SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has filed this revision against the order of his conviction for an offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and the award of RI for two years.
(2.) 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 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 Indian Penal Code. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
(3.) DISMISSED .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.