Dismissed

Jarnail Singh and Anr. v. Baldev Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2010CRR/1007/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging an acquittal for rash and negligent driving causing death, the High Court held that no case for interference was made out as the lower appellate court properly considered the entire prosecution evidence and photographs before acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondent.

Jarnail Singh and Anr. Vs Baldev Singh… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 1007 of 2006 Date of Decision : February 09, 2010

¶3

Jarnail Singh and another

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Baldev Singh and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

None for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2.

¶12

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶13

For an accident, which took place on 27.10.2000, and, in which Sukhdev Singh, driver of car bearing No. PB-12-0008 lost his life, respondent No.1 was charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2004, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, convicted respondent No.1 under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. He was also convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous

¶14

Crl. Revision No. 1007 of 2006 -2-

¶15

imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, respondent No.1 filed an appeal, which was accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 13.12.2005 and he was acquitted of the charges against him. The said judgment has been impugned in the present revision filed by the petitioners.

¶16

The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Jarnail Singh-petitioner wherein he had stated that he alongwith Jagmohan Singh-petitioner went to Moga on a scooter for their personal work on 27.10.2000. At about 3.30 p.m., when they were coming back from Moga and reached at a distance of 2 kilometers ahead of Bughipura Chowk, a truck bearing registration No.PB-04-2504 loaded with paddy, was going ahead of them at a very high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the meanwhile, a car came from the opposite side. The truck struck against the car as a result of which Sukhdev Singh, driver of the car, breathed his last at the spot.

¶17

The lower appellate Court while acquitting respondent No.1 of the charges against him considered the entire prosecution evidence and came to a conclusion that Jarnail Singh-petitioner, who had lodged the FIR was completely silent regarding the position of the truck when the car coming from the opposite side struck into it. Moreover, the photographs available in the file revealed that the collision between the car and the truck took place in the middle of the road after which the truck drifted away to its left side. From those photographs, the lower

¶18

Crl. Revision No. 1007 of 2006 -3-

¶19

appellate Court concluded that it was difficult to say as to which vehicle out of the truck and car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Merely because respondent No.1 was driving a heavier/bigger vehicle was no ground to fix his liability in causing the accident in question.

¶20

The scope of the present revision is very limited. In case any material evidence had been over looked by the lower appellate Court, this Court would have no hesitation to reverse the judgment and send the case to lower appellate Court for re-trial/re-writing of the judgment. The entire prosecution evidence was taken into consideration by the lower appellate Court in setting aside the conviction and sentence of respondent No.1.

¶21

In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga in acquitting respondent No.1 of the charges against him.

¶22

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

February 09, 2009 ajay-1

¶24

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Jarnail Singh and Anr. v. Baldev Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh and Anr. v. Baldev Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Vs Joginder Singh

Navpreet Singh Vs State of Pb.

Jagminder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ram Parshad Vs State of Haryana

Mukesh Kumar Singla Vs Saroj Singla

Sunil Mehta Vs State of Punjab and Anr.