Rajinder Singh PW 3 companyroborated the testimony of PW 2.
The Courts have also taken numbere of a significant circumstance that the appellant, who was driver on the said truck of ITBP, was surrendered by his own companymandant.
The appeal preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order aforesaid was companysidered and dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala by the judgment dated 04.02.2009 after re appreciation of the entire evidence on record.
After companypletion of investigation, the accused was charge sheeted for the offences aforesaid.
In its judgment and order dated 28.11.2005, the Trial Court rejected the companytentions urged on behalf of the accused and found it proved that he did cause the accident which resulted in the death of the rider of moped and further that the identity of the accused appellant as driver of the offending vehicle was number in doubt for he was surrendered by his own companymandant.
The accused appellant took the matter further in revision Criminal Revision No.
The main plank of the case of the appellant is that his involvement in the accident in question is number proved, inasmuch as his identity as the driver of the offending vehicle has number been established.
The appellant, who was serving with ITBP, was surrendered by his companymandant and was arrested on 04.04.2000.
Therefore, from the said deposition it cannot be said that Nirpal Singh PW2 had failed to identify the Petitioner as the person who was driving the truck.
In trial, the prosecution, inter alia, relied on the testimony of PW 2 Nirpal Singh, who asserted that at the time of the accident, he was going on a scooter with his brother Rajinder Singh and saw the truck of ITBP bearing registration number HPS 5716 being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and the truck, while turning on the wrong side of the road, ran over the moped, resulting in the demise of the rider.
Even in the revision petition, the High Court has taken pains to analyse the evidence and, after due companysideration of the material on record, including the testimony of PW 2 Nirpal Singh and PW 3 Rajinder Singh, has affirmed the finding that the appellant was indeed the driver of the offending vehicle.
Besides, Rajinder Singh PW3 in his deposition on 22.08.2003 stated that he identified the accused Petitioner present in Court who was driving the offending truck.
It was further alleged that the appellant immediately fled from the scene with his vehicle.
The accusation against the appellant had been that on 10.03.2000, at around 0730 a.m., while driving a truck bearing registration No.
The accused appellant attempted to suggest that his identity was in doubt as, admittedly, the driver of the offending truck had fled from the scene.
621 of 2009 whereby, the High Court of Punjab Haryana, Chandigarh has upheld his companyviction for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
The companytention so urged essentially relates to a question of fact and in the present case, the Trial Court as also Appellate Court, after detailed scrutiny of the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the appellant had been the driver of the vehicle in question who fled from the scene with his vehicle.
621 of 2009 , which was also dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by the impugned order dated 18.04.2009 giving rise to this appeal.
For the incident in question, FIR was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala on the statement of Nirpal Singh PW 2 , who was an eye witness to the accident alongwith Rajinder Singh PW 3 .
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. In this appeal, the appellant accused has called in question the order dated 18.04.2009 in Criminal Revision No.
