In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1880 of 2001 Date of decision: April 15, 2009 Jenu Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 5.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279 IPC; to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.400/- under Section 304-A IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.11.1995, a wireless message was received in the Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh regarding accident between a tractor and cycle at the turning of GCG College, Sector 42, Chandigarh. On receipt of the message, ASI Kulbir Kaur along with other police officials reached at the spot where she recorded the statement of the complainant Ravinder Kaur, who disclosed that she accompanied by Jyoti Sharma were proceeding to the college at Sector 42, Chandigarh on their respective cycles. At about 9.45 a.m. when they were proceeding from outer Dakshin Marg to the college, the petitioner while driving a blue coloured Ford Tractor with Trolley, rashly and negligently came from the front side and struck against the cycle of Jyoti Sharma as a result of which Jyoti Sharma fell down and tyre of the trolley ran over her. She died at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and Crl. Revision No. 1880 of 2001 -2- investigated. The petitioner was arrested. On completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Narinder Nath (PW1), ASI Kulbir Kaur (PW2), Ravinder Kaur (PW3), Kewal Krishan (PW4), Dr. Narinder Kumar (PW5), Mahabir Singh (PW6), Jugal Kishore Mechanic (PW7), Haracharan Singh (PW8) and Bhag Singh (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the statements of Narinder Nath (PW1) and Ravinder Kaur (PW3). Out of the aforementioned two witnesses, Ravinder Kaur has not supported the prosecution case, rather she has stated that she does not know how the accident took place and who was driving the vehicle. She does not state any where if the driver of the tractor was driving it rashly and negligently. She also does not describe the situation or the manner in which the accident took place. Now coming to the statement Narinder Nath (PW1) the sole witness over which the prosecution has placed reliance. He also does not state if the tractor was coming on the wrong side of the road or it was being driven rashly or negligently. He was suspicious if the name of the driver was Jeun Singh or Janender Singh. He further admits that he did not know Jeun Singh earlier but no test identification parade was got conducted by the Investigating Officer to identify the accused. He was working in the Public Health Department. The accident took place on 21.11.1995 at 9.45 a.m. He admits that his duty hours were from 8.00 a.m. to 8/9.00 p.m. It has not been explained as to how he was present at the place of occurrence during the duty hours. No record from the office of the Public Health Department was summoned to prove if he was on leave on that day. Further more, in the light of the fact that the complainant has not supported the prosecution case, Crl. Revision No. 1880 of 2001 -3- the date of recording of statement of Narinder Nath under Section 161 Cr.P.C. becomes more significant. He has admitted in his statement that the police did not record his statement on that day but had obtained his signatures. No such statement bearing signatures of Narinder Nath (PW1) has been proved on record. It is not established on record as to when statement of Narinder Nath (PW1) was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He admittedly being neighbour of the complainant may be under the influence of the complainant to be introduced as a witnesses. He has not given the number of the tractor nor has stated that the tractor was driven by the accused rashly or negligently. He has also not explained as to what sort of negligence or rashness the petitioner had committed resulting into the accident. It would further be significant to mention here that the accident took place on 21.11.1995, but the tractor was taken into possession on 23.1.1996. The Investigating Officer ASI Kulbir Kaur (PW2) also states that it was only Ravinder Kaur who had met her at the place of accident and she recorded her statement which shows that it was Ravinder Kaur who could be treated as a last witness to the accident but she does not identify the petitioner. Narinder Nath (PW1) admits that the police came in his presence at the spot but ASI Kulbir Kaur has stated that she had recorded the statement of Ravinder Kaur only at the spot. Thus, Narinder Nath (PW1) could be said to be a manufactured witness. The aforesaid circumstances were not taken into consideration by the trial court while deciding the issue of identification as well as the factum with regard to rashness or negligence by the petitioner. Consequently, interference in the impugned judgment has become inevitable. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment, acquit the accused-petitioner of the charges framed against him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. The bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim his remuneration as per rules. April 15, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge