IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2212 of 2006 Date of decision: 7th December, 2011 Ranjit … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ranjit Singh-present petitioner was nominated as an accused in a case FIR No.370 dated 18.11.1999 registered at Police Station Pehowa under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. According to the prosecution, on 15th November, 1999 at about 9.00 p.m. in the area of Pehowa the petitioner was driving a Tanker bearing registration No.DL1G-7362 at a public place in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he endangered human life and personal safety and committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. Furthermore, the petitioner by driving the aforesaid vehicle rashly and negligently caused simple hurt to Dharampal PW-3 and Suresh Kumar PW-4, and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. In the accident, Dharampal PW-3 also suffered a grievous injury on the right leg and thus, the petitioner was charged under Section 338 IPC also. The trial Court, relying upon the testimony of the witnesses, vide its impugned judgment dated 3rd September, 2005 held the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, and Criminal Revision No.2212 of 2006 vide an order dated 5th September, 2005 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced under Section 337 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. The petitioner was also sentenced under Section 338 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide its judgment dated 25th October, 2006 upheld the conviction recorded and maintained the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the petitioner, and had dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that the sole question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is as to whether the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused as a driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Tanker or not. To determine the above said issue, it will be necessary to notice brief facts of the case. Vinod Kumar PW-2 had made a statement Ex.PW2/A, wherein he stated that he was a resident of Purana Bazaar, Pehowa and was owner of a vehicle, i.e. Tata 709 Tempo bearing registration No.HR37-6639. On 15th November, 1999 at about 9.00 p.m. he along 2 Criminal Revision No.2212 of 2006 with his Tempo, which was loaded, was standing along with his brother Dharampal, Suresh Kumar Kabari and driver Mewa Ram. Meanwhile, a Tanker bearing registration No.DL1G-7362, which was carrying oil, came from the side of Gulah. Name of the driver of Tanker was later-on learnt as Ranjit Singh @ Moti son of Sujan Singh, resident of Plot No.5, Bakhli. It is stated that the Tanker came in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the Tempo from rear side and thereafter, its driver ran away from the spot along with the Tanker. Vinod Kumar and driver of his Tempo Mewa Ram had stepped backward. Due to the impact of hit, the Tempo moved forward, due to which Dharampal brother of the complainant and Suresh Kumar Kabari suffered injuries. The complainant and his driver Mewa Ram brought injured Dharampal and Suresh Kumar in a rickshaw to Bindlesh Nursing Home, a private hospital, where the injured were given first aid. Thereafter, leaving the injured at home, complainant along with his driver Mewa Ram went towards Delhi. In the accident, back side of the Tempo was damaged and the complainant had suffered a loss. A grievance was made that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Ranjit Singh accused-petitioner. Complainant Vinod Kumar appeared as PW-2 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. In examination in-chief, he stated that the Tanker was being driven by Ranjit Singh, who is present in the Court and he had learnt about this fact later-on. Dharampal PW-3 stated that in the vehicle, he along with his brother Vinod Kumar had loaded the goods of Suresh Kumar Kabari. When he along with his brother, Suresh Kumar Kabari and driver Mewa Ram were talking; meanwhile a Tanker bearing registration No.DL1G- 7362 came in a rash and negligent manner. The Tanker was being driven 3 Criminal Revision No.2212 of 2006 by the accused present in the Court. The Tanker had hit the Tempo, due to which this witness and Suresh Kumar had suffered injuries. Suresh Kumar Kabari appeared as PW-4 and stated that he was running a shop of junk-dealer at Pehowa. On 15th November, 1999 he along with Dharampal, Vinod Kumar and driver of Tempo were talking when a Tanker came which was being driven by Ranjit Singh. The Tanker hit the Tempo from the back side, due to which this witness and Dharampal had suffered injuries. Jagir Singh PW-1 had taken photographs Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 of the spot. He also proved their negatives as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Constable Sukhwinder Singh PW-5 had taken the Tanker into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. Tara Chand, Fitter of Haryana Roadways PW-6 had submitted a mechanical test report of the Tanker Ex.PC. Mewa Ram, driver of the Tempo, PW-7 had not supported the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. Constable Seth Pal PW-8 had submitted mechanical test report of Tempo. Constable Satpal Singh PW-9 had taken the Tempo into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-9/A. ASI Rampal PW-10 proved various facets of the investigation. Dr.Bharat Bhushan PW-11 on 18th November, 1999 had medico legally examined injured Dharampal and Suresh Kumar. He opined that Dharampal had suffered a fracture of right Fibula and this fact was confirmed in the X-ray. Inspector Dharam Singh PW-12 at the relevant time was posted as SHO Police Station Pehowa. On 14th December, 1999 he had 4 Criminal Revision No.2212 of 2006 effected arrest of the accused when he was produced by Joginder Singh Panch. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove identity of the accused i.e. driver of the Tanker. It is stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 15th November, 1999; whereas FIR Ex.PW10/B was registered on 18th November, 1999. Counsel has further stated that in the FIR it is stated that the witnesses learnt about name of the driver of offending vehicle as Ranjit Singh later-on. It is further stated that the injured Dharampal and Suresh Kumar were medico legally examined on 18th November, 1999, i.e. after three days of the occurrence. According to counsel for the petitioner, conduct of complainant Vinod Kumar and Mewa Ram to go to Delhi to unload the goods without informing the matter to any authority is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that Dharampal and Suresh Kumar were injured in the occurrence and their presence at the spot is stamped. Therefore, this Court should place implicit reliance upon their testimonies. It has not come in evidence that the accused was known to the witnesses earlier. The witnesses in the Court and the complainant in the FIR have only stated that later-on they learnt the name of driver of the Tanker as Ranjit Singh. As to who disclosed the name of driver of the Tanker to them, has not been brought on record. Furthermore, it is a case where the Tanker had hit the Tempo from its rear side, whereas the 5 Criminal Revision No.2212 of 2006 witnesses were standing in front of the Tempo and the Tempo due to the impact of hit had moved forward, and thereby, injuries were caused to the witnesses. Occurrence had taken place at about 9.30 p.m. Immediately after the Tanker had hit the Tempo from rear side, the driver along with the Tanker had decamped from the spot. At the night time, when the driver is in the cabin of Tanker and the witnesses are standing in front of the Tempo, there would be no opportunity for them to see and identify the driver of Tanker. Prosecution has carried no test identification parade. The solitary accused, when was standing in the dock, has been identified by the witnesses. Though, the Courts have held that the identification of accused in Court is a substantive piece of evidence; but it has also been held that identification, when the accused is standing in the dock, is a weak piece of evidence. In the present case, regarding identity of the accused, no corroborative evidence is available. Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove identity of the accused as a driver of the Tanker. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the petitioner. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 7, 2011 rps 6