High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Raj Singh alias Raju v. State of Punjab - CRR-243-1992  RD-P&H 266 (23 January 2006)
Raj Singh alias Raju APPELLANT
State of Punjab RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
Present:- Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Manwinder Singh Sidhu, Senior D.A.G. Punjab.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 9.3.1992 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by appellant Raj Singh alias Raju against the judgment dated 26.10.1991 of the J.M.I.C., Fazilka.
The prosecution case in brief is that, on 26.3.1989 Arjan Dass along with his brother Ramesh Kumar was going towards Ghantaghar Chowk on their cycles. When they reached near the outer gate of Bus Stand Fazlika, a bus belonging to Baba Budha Ji Bus Service Muktsar came from the opposite direction, which was being driven by the appellant, rashly and negligently and hit Arjan Dass brother of complainant Ramesh Kumar. This was witnessed by Lakha Ram.
The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr.K.N.Makkar PW-1, Ramesh Kumar PW-2, Lakha Ram PW-3 Raghbir Chand PW-4, Sukhdev Raj PW-5 and Balkaran Singh PW-6.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant has been falsely implicated. In fact, it was some other bus which hit Arjan Dass. The eye- witness Ramesh Kumar PW-2 and Lakha Ram PW-3 are both interested witnesses.
Ramesh Kumar PW-2 is the brother of the deceased and Lakha Ram PW-3 belongs to the same village of the deceased. Appellant was not apprehended at the place where the alleged accident had taken place.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment, with their assistance.
Ramesh Kumar PW-2 and Lakha Ram PW-3 were present at the place of occurrence, i.e. Bus Stand, Fazilka. Lakha Ram PW-3 is an independent witness. Complainant Ramesh Kumar PW-2 and his brother Arjan Dass were going on cycles, when they were hit by the bus driven by the appellant. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has nowhere stated that he was not driving Bus No.PAB-3150 , but has stated that the prosecution story was wrong.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Conviction of the appellant is sustained. Appeal has been pending in this Court for the last 14 years and the sword of conviction has been hanging over the head of the appellant. This itself is a punishment. Sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent already undergone.
Appeal is dismissed.
( MEHTAB S.GILL )
February 10, 2006 JUDGE
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.