High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sucha Singh v. The State of Punjab - CRR-43-1992  RD-P&H 267 (23 January 2006)
Sucha Singh APPELLANT
The State of Punjab RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
Present:- Mr.Bipan Ghai, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Senior D.A.G. Punjab.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ropar vide which he dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by appellant Sucha Singh against the judgment dated 19.10.1990 of the J.M.I.C., Ropar.
The case of the prosecution is that Balbir Singh was posted as Pump Driver of Water Works in Municipal Committee, Ropar. On 20.2.1989 Madan Lal Sharma, Superintendent Octroi, proceeded for checking of the Octroi Post on his motor cycle No.PBR-6356 which was being driven by Balbir Singh. Truck No.PNL-5225 which was being driven, rashly and negligently by the appellant, struck against the motor cycle. Both Balbir Singh and Madan Lal fell down.
Appellant ran away from the spot. Madan Lal died on the spot. Surinder Singh, Octroi Clerk witnessed the occurrence. Balbir Singh sustained injuries on his left leg and was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ropar.
The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Balbir Singh PW-1, Surinder Singh PW-2, C.Tarlochan Singh PW-3, Dr.Suresh Singla PW-4, Dr.Surinder Kaur PW-5, Kishan Lal PW-6 and ASI Kartar Singh PW-7.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that the motor cycle was being driven negligently and rashly and in fact it was truck No. HIB-4593 which had struck the motor cycle.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment with their assistance.
Testimony of both the eye-witnesses Balbir Singh PW-1 and Surinder Singh PW-2 who was posted as Octroi Clerk, corroborate each other inter se. They have stated that appellant was driving truck No.PNL-5525, rashly and negligently which struck the motor cycle, which proved fatal to Madan Lal. No suggestion has been put to the witnesses, that it was truck No. HIB-4593, and not truck No.PNL- 5225, which struck the motor cycle of the deceased. The police had taken truck of the appellant into possession on the same day from the place of occurrence. No suggestion has also been put to the witnesses, regarding negligence being on the part of Balbir Singh PW-1.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Appellant is facing trial for the last more than 17 years. This itself is a punishment. Conviction of the appellant is sustained. However, sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent already undergone.
Appeal is dismissed.
( MEHTAB S.GILL )
February 2, 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.