Dismissed

Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2009CRR/501/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving. The court upheld the finding that the petitioner caused a fatal accident due to negligence, noting that the evidence was credible and the sentence was not excessive.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Crl. Revision No. 501 of 2002

¶3

Date of decision: February 26, 2009

Krishan Kumar

... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for respondent.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J.

¶12

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 21.11.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC.

¶13

The case relates to the an accident allegedly committed by the petitioner wherein three persons died and three suffered injuries.

¶14

The brief resume of facts is that on 8.10.1995, Sukhbir Singh complainant along with his wife Amarjit Kaur, son Prabhjot Singh aged about 8 years, daughter Kulwinder Kaur aged about 6 years and Tejinder Kaur wife of Gurpal Singh Bhatti, the then SDM, Khanna had started from Chandigarh to Khanna in a maruti van bearing registration No.CH-02-0327 (herein referred as 'the Van') driven by Ram Babu. Another car occupied by

¶15

Crl. Revision No. 501 of 2002

¶16

-2-

¶17

¶18

Sukhjit Singh, his wife and children was also following them. Ram Babu stopped the Van at Malerkotla chowk and started waiting for the other car for moving together. At about 2.30 a.m., the petitioner while driving mini truck Tata 407 bearing registration No. DL-1LD-2648, rashly and negligently came from behind i.e. from Gobindgarh side and hit their Van. Resultantly, the Van over turned and caught fire. As a sequel of which, Amarjit Kaur and Tejinder Kaur were burnt to death, whereas, Prabhjot Singh, Kulwinder Kaur, Sukhbir Singh and Ram Babu received burn injuries. Thereafter, the deceased as well as the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Khanna. However, after giving them first aid, they were referred to C.M.C. Ludhiana where they were got admitted. Kulwinder Kaur also succumbed to injuries on the same day at C.M.C. Ludhiana. On the statement of Sukhbir Singh at CMC, Ludhiana, at 8.00 a.m. FIR Ex.PW12/G was recorded at Police Station City Khanna. The case was investigated and ultimately challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court.

¶19

The petitioner was charged under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

¶20

The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, examined 14 witnesses.

¶21

PW-1 Durga Dass, who had taken the photographs of the place of accident proved negatives Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and positives Ex.P11 to Ex.P20.

¶22

PW-2 Surjit Singh identified the dead body of Tejinder Kaur and Amarjit Kaur on 8.10.1995.

¶23

Crl. Revision No. 501 of 2002

¶24

-3-

¶25

¶26

PW-3 Dr. P.D. Singla, S.M.O. Civil Hospital, Khanna proved the postmortem report of Tejinder Kaur and Amarjit Kaur Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/C respectively and also depicted about the injuries received by them.

¶27

PW-4 Sukhbir Singh is the complainant who reiterated the circumstances under which the accident took place and directly raised finger against the petitioner that he was responsible for the commission of the crime as he was rash and negligent. He without taking care of the stationary Van, on the extreme left side of the road, struck against the same, killing three persons and causing injuries to three others including children.

¶28

PW-5 Lal Singh disclosed that he had identified the dead body of Kulwinder Kaur at C.M.C. Ludhiana.

¶29

PW-6 HC Avtar Singh had mechanically tested one Tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LD-2648 and maruti Van bearing registration No. CH-02-0327 and he proved his reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.

¶30

PW-7 ASI Bant Singh proved his part of investigation. PW-8 SI Bhupinder Singh disclosed that he got the place of accident photographed and also made a request for postmortem examination of the dead bodies.

¶31

PW-10 (wrongly mentioned as PW-10 instead of PW-9) HC Harbans Lal is a witness to the recovery of the Van and the Tata Tempo in question.

¶32

PW-11 (wrongly mentioned as PW-11 instead of PW-10) ASI Tilak Raj has proved part of investigation conducted by him.

¶33

Crl. Revision No. 501 of 2002

¶34

-4-

¶35

¶36

PW-12 (wrongly mentioned as PW-12 instead of PW-11) C. Kewal Krishan another eye witness to the accident has supported the prosecution version. His statement is quite consistent with the statement of Sukhbir Singh complainant.

¶37

PW-13 (wrongly mentioned as PW-13 instead of PW-12) HC Kuldeep Singh had stated that he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh on the day of occurrence and moved application Ex.PW14/B.

¶38

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case.

¶39

Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed.

¶40

Arguments heard. Record perused.

¶41

Sukhbir Singh an injured eye witness has depicted the time, place and the manner in which the accident took place. Despite the lengthy cross examination conducted upon him, nothing fruitful could be elicited which may be helpful to belie the prosecution version. He has specifically pleaded that he identified the petitioner at that time. His statement finds corroboration from the testimony of C. Kewal Krishan and he has also categorically stated that after the accident, the petitioner fled away. He also disclosed that as a result of the accident, the Van caught fire, resultantly two ladies died at the spot and one died in hospital, by burn injuries. Both these witnesses have identified the petitioner. No animus, malice, prejudice or enmity of the witnesses with the petitioner has been alleged or proved so as to falsely implicate him in the case. The medical evidence is consistent with the ocular version. Since the witnesses had seen the petitioner before

¶42

Crl. Revision No. 501 of 2002

¶43

-5-

¶44

¶45

he fled away and that his driving licence was recovered from Tata 407 i.e. offending vehicle, clearly establishes his identity and connects him with the crime. The photographs taken from the place of accident by Durga Dass (PW1) also is sufficient evidence depicting the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of the truthful witnesses, which are hardly relevant being created during cross examination conducted by the intelligent and expert advocate. The said discrepancies if examined do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case, thus, pale into insignificance. The mere fact that Ram Babu was not examined hardly effects the prosecution case as it is not the quantity of evidence which weighs but it is the quality of evidence which is to be assessed by the court in order to prove the guilt of the accused. The stationary van which was involved in the accident was not a small thing which could be left un-noticed by the drivers of the vehicle going on the road. The site plan as placed on record establishes that the Van was lying parked on the extreme left side of the road, whereas, the petitioner brought his Tata 407 bearing registration No.DL-1LD-2648 on the extreme left side and hit the stationary van causing three casualties and injuring three others. As such, no lenient view on the quantum of sentence could be taken, rather it appears that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is already on the lower side.

¶46

Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is

¶47

dismissed.

¶48

February 26, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge

Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajmer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gajraj Singh Vs State of Haryana

(O&M)Ghansham Dass and Anr. Vs Nathu Ram and Ors.

Bihari Lal Vs Jagdeep Kumar @ Bittu and Others

Ved Pal Vs State of Haryana