Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 Date of Decision:17.07.2009 Suba Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been directed against judgment dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against judgment/ order of sentence dated 13.7.1998 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Suba Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of the same to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 -2- The facts in brief are that on 4.12.1995 Subhash after having finished his work at Ambala City was proceeding to his village at Balana in a Tonga belonging to Kaka resident of Balana. On his way, his father Saroopa also sat in the said Tonga in order to reach Balana. When the Tonga was at some distance from Village Balana, one tractor bearing registration No.PB11-D-9526, being driven by accused Suba Singh rashly and negligently came from behind and struck against the said Tonga. As a result of its impact, Subhash fell on the metalled portion of the road, while Saroopa on the kacha berm of the road. In the meanwhile, Sukhdev also came from Ambala side on his scooter. He picked up both Subhash and Saroopa and took them to the shop of Dr. Mohinder Singh PW. As the condition of Subhash was serious, the said Doctor asked them to remove him to Civil Hospital. When Subhash Chand was on the way to the Civil Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. His dead body was brought back to the village. Saroopa made statement before Sub Inspector Gurbachan Singh. On its basis, formal FIR was recorded. The usual formalities were observed. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC. The accused was charged under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 -3- evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has preferred this revision. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. I have heard the learned State Counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The first ground taken up in the memorandum of revision is that the death of the deceased Subhash is not established on the record for the reason that the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination of his dead body has been withheld by the prosecution and only the post mortem examination report has been placed on the record. This plea is unsustainable for the reason that a glance through post mortem examination report Ex.PX would reveal that therein it has been specifically mentioned that the cause of death is road side accident. To add further to it, the evidence tendered by Saroopa, Sukhdev Singh and Ramesh Kumar PWs also fortify this fact. To crown it all, Saroopa father of the deceased was also travelling in the same Tonga which was hit from behind by the tractor. When the petitioner was driving the tractor, he would have certainly observed that a tonga was going ahead of his tractor and by all probabilities, he would have taken all the pre-cautions to avoid the accident, if he had be been driving the tractor with due care and caution. On evaluating the evidence of the above-mentioned witnesses, it emerges out that the rash and negligent driving of tractor by the petitioner in fact had Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 -4- resulted in this accident, in which the life of Subhash deceased was snuffed in a jiffy. So, mere non-examination of the Doctor in no manner has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The next ground is that there is inordinate inexplicable delay in lodging of the FIR as the accident took place on 4.12.1995 at 7:00 P.M whereas the matter was reported to the police on 5.12.1995 in the morning. This ground is also unsustainable. It is an accepted rule of law that the delay per se is not fatal to the prosecution case. Herein, Saroopa father of the deceased himself was involved in the accident. When his son had lost his life and, he himself had sustained injuries, he could not be expected to report the matter to the police at the earliest possible. Saroopa Singh PW has appeared as a witness. When he was cross-examined, he stood like a rock. His credibility could not be impeached in any manner. That being so, it would be going too far to count the alleged delay towards the prosecution. Lastly, it has been submitted that neither any identification parade of the petitioner was conducted by the police nor he was got identified from the witnesses and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the prosecution to contend that the petitioner is the same person who in fact had caused this accident. This argument too is hard to swallow. As ruled in re: Md. Kalam alias Abhdul Kalam v. State of Rajasthan, 2008(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 631, identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. Identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in Court. Further as observed in re: Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2009(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 868, the object of conducting test identification parade is two fold, first is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 -5- really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime and the second, is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person, whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, when the afore- mentioned PWs who had witnessed the accident were under cross- examination, they did not fumble for a little while as to the identity of the accused. They have fully supported the prosecution case including the identification of the accused. So, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to establish identity of the accused. No other point has been raised in the grounds of revision. On analysing and scrutinising the entire evidence, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by both the Courts below in recording the conviction. Consequently, the conviction is maintained. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1995. In re: Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 834, the accused was convicted under Section 304-A of IPC for causing the death of a person by rash and negligent driving and was sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. He had remained in custody for 15 days. The incident being 17 years old, he was released on probation. In re: Vaswa Nand v. State, 2001 (4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 784, the accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 279/338/304-A of IPC. He had faced trial for 15 years. Taking into consideration this fact, he was released on probation. Criminal Revision No.1080 of 1999 -6- In the instant case, the incident being more than 13 years old, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (20 days). With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition stands dismissed. July 17, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No