IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 861 of 2001 Date of decision: January 11, 2010 Jagdish Chand .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr.S.P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, D.A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 14.5.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner Jagdish Chand (herein referred as 'the petitioner'), against the judgment dated 16.11.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC. In nut shell, the facts are that the petitioner is a driver of P.A.P. On 22.11.1996, he was taking the truck bearing registration No.PB-08K- 9652 from the Gate No.2 of PAP towards the G.T. Road by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and while doing so, he struck against the scooter bearing registration No.PB-10N-9192, as a result of which the scooter rider Manwinder Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur a pillion rider suffered injuries and ultimately both of them died. A case was registered against the petitioner which was investigated and ultimately trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Criminal Revision No. 861 of 2001 -2- *** There is no denying a fact that the petitioner was the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No.PB-08K-9652. There is also no denying a fact that the petitioner was taking out his truck from Gate No.2 of P.A.P. and there was a speed breaker outside the gate. There was a G.T. Road and a divider. The occurrence had taken place out side the P.A.P. Gate. Though Satinder Pal (PW2) has supported the prosecution case stating that the petitioner while driving the truck rashly and negligently brought the truck and struck against the scooter, but his this statement runs counter to the actual scenario depicted through the photographs Ex.D-1 to D-4 placed on record. The photographs reveal that the scooter and the deceased were caught in between the rear wheel and front wheel of the truck. Had the petitioner struck the truck against the scooter from the right side or front side then the scooter driver or his wife would have been in front of the said truck or by its side. There was no occasion for the scooter and the dead body to be in between the wheels. The scooter in between the wheels appears to be in standing shape which shows that the scooter struck in the mid of the truck and pierced in between the wheels. Had the scooter fallen down and crushed, then it could be said that the truck passed over the scooter and the scooter was smashed. SI Tirath Singh (PW6) is the witness of the prosecution. He has given the correct situation of the present occurrence admitting that when the truck met with the accident it was stationery at that time. He also admitted it to be correct that the scooter struck in the rear side of the truck. He also denies the presence of the other witnesses at the spot. In any case, the witnesses may tell a lie but the circumstances do not. From the photographs it appears that the truck had come out of P.A.P. and it turned towards Amritsar, then the scooter came and struck in the rear side of the truck. It may further be observed that in view of the speed breakers in front of the gate of P.A.P. the truck could never be at a rash speed. Thus, in these circumstances, it could safely be concluded that the accident did not take place as a result of rash and negligent act of the petitioner. Findings returned by both the courts below appear to be the result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence. Both the courts below did not discuss the photographs, site plan and the relevant part of the Criminal Revision No. 861 of 2001 -3- *** statement of Tirath Singh (PW6). As such, it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Consequently, interference at my end has become inevitable. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment, acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. January 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge