SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
OM PARKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025.

Om Parkash ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phillaur whereby the petitioner had been convicted for the commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

2 The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 24.10.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29976-2013.

3 As per case of the prosecution, the complainant Kanwaljit Kaur, who is permanent resident of Canada and had come to India, stated that on

19.05.2007, her son Amandeep Singh @ Raja, daughter Manpreet Kaur, son- in-law Gurmit Singh went to Haveli Restaurant, Jalandhar in an Accent car bearing No.DL-2F-EC-0066 whereas she, along with the children of her daughter Manpreet Kaur and one Kulwinder Singh, friend of her son Amandeep Singh @ Raja, went to Haveli Restaurant, Jalandhar for dinner in an Indica car bearing No.PB10-BL-T-1128. After meal, when all of them were going towards Ludhiana, a truck bearing No.JK02B-7805, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, crossed their vehicles. At about 3.30 am on 20.05.2007, when the complainant and her family reached near Dhumal Petrol Pump, GT Road, Phillaur, the driver of the said truck stopped the same on the middle of the road and the car of Amandeep Singh @ Raja struck against the truck of the accused. The son of the complainant namely Amandeep Singh @ Raja died on the spot whereas Manpreet Kaur and Gurmit Singh got injured in the accident and were shifted to Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana. Manpreet Kaur also succumbed to death later on account of injuries received. The driver of the truck fled away from the spot. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, FIR No.129 dated 20.05.2007 came to be registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, and

338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Phillaur.

3. The documents of the vehicles were taken into police possession. The accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the court for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 of IPC and documents were supplied to the accused-petitioner free of cost.

4. Finding a prima facie case having been made out, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and the contents of the same were read over the and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined Kanwaljit Kaur, complainant as PW-1, Dr. Kanwaljit Singh, SMO as PW-2, Kulwinder Singh as PW-3, Ramesh Kumar as PW-4, HC Tarlochan Singh as PW-5, Narinder Singh as PW-6, HC Kulwinder Singh as PW-7, ASI Palwinder Singh as PW-8 and ASI Surjit Singh as PW-9 and closed the prosecution evidence.

6. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing on record were put to him. The petitioner denied the allegations in their entirety, described the prosecution case and evidence as false and fabricated, and asserted his innocence.

7. No defence evidence/witness was produced by the accused durin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top