SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges his conviction passed by the two Courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.9.1996, PW9 ASI Sh. Om Parkash along with Constable Roshan Lal, Constable Rajinder Kumar and HHC Sh. Tilak Raj were on patrol duty near Damtal bus stand. They received information from complainant PW1 Sh. Tilak Raj that while he was going from Channi to Damtal at about 5.15 p.m. to purchase some goods and reached near Indora curve, he noticed two boys Bholu and Gola riding on the scooter who were coming from Damtal towards Channi. He saw truck bearing No. PAT -5295 driving behind the scooter. The truck, according to him, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the truck struck against the scooter as a result both scooterists fell on the road. Gola son of Sh. Amar Chand died on the spot while his brother Bholu sustained grievous injuries. He lifted both of them to a private hospital at Pathankot for treatment/On his inquiry, the truck driver disclosed his name Satnam Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh and that the accident was a result of his rash and negligent act.

(2.) THE prosecution examined nine witnesses. It was urged on the evidence on record that the petitioner is not guilty of any offence for the reason that he was not driving the truck at the time of the occurrence. The learned trial Court rejected this submission on the totality of the evidence holding that according to the statement Ext. PW1/A of complainant PW1 Tilak -Raj, who was the only eye witness, not only described the entire incident in graphic detail but that the truck stopped briefly after some distance where the driver disclosed his name as Satnam Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh. He had disclosed this information to the police. In cross -examination, he states that he has been the Pradhan of the Panchayat for a period of eleven years. It was suggested to him that both the deceased were engaged in illicit trade of liquor and that this witness was a stock police witness. He denied this suggestion. He also denied that the scooter had fallen down because of the uneven road surfaced. It was suggested to him that the petitioner had been roped in at the behest of the police which suggestion was denied. The post mortem reports confirmed the death of both the deceased as having been caused in the accident. The petitioner appealed.

(3.) IT is urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not involved in the accident as it has been unable to establish by reasonable and cogent evidence that the petitioner was actually present at the spot. Learned Counsel urges that it was not possible that the driver would have hit the scooterists and would have disclosed his name thereafter. He also submits that no identification parade was carried out in which event the identity of the appellant ascertained and criminality could not be fastened upon him. I do not find any weight in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Having given my careful thought to the evidence on record, I have no doubt in my mind that the accident was, in fact caused by the petitioner herein. The submission that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the police, cannot be accepted as there is no foundation in fact or law. Re -appreciation of evidence is not the domain of this Court in revisional jurisdiction except in case of perversity but having gone through the evidence again, I cannot fault with the reasoning of the two Courts below. There is, thus, no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.