61 411 4 Criminal Revision No007 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 Criminal Revision N01OO7QQQ 0 Date of Decisionl July Ilt 2010 CAO 1 I 0 Iqbal Singh Petitioner Z VERSUS Z State of Punjab 2espondent C2 1 Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapersmay be I allowed to see the judgment2 08 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 J Z CORAM iONBLE MR OUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present1 Mr Vikas Bahl Advocate and Mr Deepak Saherwai Advocate for the petitioner MsAnu Pal Assistant Advocate General Punjab MOHINDER PAl 1 Petitioner Iqbal Si ngh faced tria l u nder Sections 279 337 338 3044 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code thereinafter 1 referred to as the Codel on the allegation that on 5 71998 at about 4 PM while he was emplcyedas Driver in the Chandigarh . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 m 2 Criminal Revision NonlOO7of 2003 Transport Underta king DepotIl a nd was driving Bus No CH OlGe5183 rashIy a nd negligently the reby e n da ngering persona1 m safetyof others hit the bus against the Ambassador Car Q bearing NoClOl961 1 being driven by Gurmail 0 C0 Singh As a result of the accident Gurmail Singh lriver of the I Ambassadorcarland RajinderpalKaurone of the occupantsof the C said car succumbed to the injuries received by them in this I accident The accident was witnessed by compIai na nt Z DrHarpreet Singh his brother Parbhleen Singh and their father AmrikSingh who were also occupantsof the illated Car being I d riven by Gurmail Singh deceasedl 06 The pe0oner was convicted by the trial Court under r Sections 279 337 338 3044 and 427 of the Code Under mmo Z Section 279 of the Code the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonmentfor six months and to pay fine of Rs0001 in default whereof to undergo further rigorous 1 for one month Under Section 337 of the Code he sentenced to undergo rigorous i m prisonment for SlX was months and to pay fi ne of Rs 0001 in default whereof to 1 undergo furthe r rigorous im prisonment for one m onth Under Section 338 of the Code the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs000 in default whereof to undergo further rigorous 1 for one month Under Section 304A of the Code he was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 1 8 Criminal Revision No1007 of 2003 and to pay fine of RsA0001 in default whereof to undergo further ngorous for six months Under Section 427 of the 1 Code he was sentenced to undergo rigorous i m prisonment for 0 six months and to pay fine of Rs 10001 in default whereof to 1 0 0 further rigorous imprisonmentfor one month All the substantivesentences were ordered to run concurrently The appeal C5 I filed by the petitioner against the judgmentof conviction and the sentenceorder passedby the trial Court was accepted by the Z Iower appellateCourt to the extent that he was acquittedof the C offence under Section 338 of of the Code However the I judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed against 08 the petitioner by the trial Court under Sections 337 304A and r 427 of the Code were affirmed by the Iower appellateCourt 7 Z Hence this revision petition Qe 1 have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case Learnedcounselfor the petitioner argued that boththe Courts below did not take into account the evidence furnished by the prosecution in its rightperspective7that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligentdriving of the car by Gurmail Singh deceased that the photographs produced bY the prosecutionon record clearly show the fault of the car driver1 and that it was the petitIoner who had taken the inju red to th e hospital wh ich proves his i n nocence It was further argued that despite the fact that the petitioner was . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 4 4 J Criminal Revision No1007 of 23 driving the bus on hls Ieft side and in a careful manner the car was hit on the rightside of the bus by the driver of the car 1 bytaking it towards the right side of the road Another argument Q raised by Iearned counsel for the petitioner IS that both 0 DrHarpreet Singh 0W2 Dr Prabhleen Singh PW1 were not C3 traveliingwith their parents in the illated car at the relevant C time I In this case the prosecution examined three ey Z witnesses ie DrHarpreetSingh PW21 DrPrabhIeen Singh r Pwl and Amrik Singh PWAl father of PeWn2 and PnWe I The instant case was registeredon the basis of statement made O byDrHarpreetSingh W before Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh r PN111 Gurmail Singh leceasedl was the official Driver of 7 Z Amrik Singh PWAl who was posted as ManagingDirector of lm the Milk Federation Punjab at Chandigarh On 5098 Amrik Singh PWAI was coming back from Ja Iandha r to Chandigarh along with his sons DrHarpreet Singh 0W2 and DrPrabhleen Singh VV and his wife RajinderpalKaur As mentioned above in the accident both Rajinderpa I Ka u r a nd Gu rma i1Singh died and Dr Harpreet Singh 6PW2I Dr Prabhleen Singh PWI and Amrik Singh PWAl received tnJUries In his examinatiornchief Amrik Slngh W41 stated that wh ich vehicle struck against our car I do not know xx xx At the time of accident perhaps I sleeping Il This deposition of Amrik was Singh PW is contrary to his statement recorded under . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 e11 S 1 Criminal Revision No1007 0200 l Section161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure However Amrik Singh PWAJ was not declared hostile by the prosecution In his 1 Amrik Singh W very emphatically stated C that 0 0 I Il Because I was fast asleep so I cannot C say which driver was atfault Againsaid my I driver is a very expert and sincere driver Z and it Iooks that he was not at fault I cannot say lll which way the present I accident took place as I was sleeping at 08 that ti me Il 7 Z By excluding the evidence of Amrik Singh PWA we are Ieft with the depositions of DrHarpreet Singh PW DrPrabhleen Singh PW1 Both of them had received injuries in the accident There is no evidence o n fiie regarding the of DrPrabhleen Singh PW However medical treatment havingbeen given to Dr Harpreet Singh W29 is on the file The same was neither exhibited nor put to the petitioneraccused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure In the case of PC Poulose State of Keralam 1996 Crle L 203 wherein no material showingthat the accused was called u pon to ad m it or deny genuinenessof post mortem report was there on recordit was . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 4a 1 Criminal Revision No007 of 2003a held that the post mortem report was inad missi ble a nd cou ld not be proved as document evidencing cause of death of the m deceased Resulta ntly the accused therein was acquitted of the chargesframed against him under Sections 279 and 304 of 0 0 the Code Besides DrHarpreet Singh PW21 in his cross C0 examination stated that I saw the accused for the first time I on 161998 in the Court complex when accusedtouched my Z fathers feet whereas Drnju PW 11 i n he r crossexa m ination stated that Il it is correct that as per entries irl the ED register I brought by me today in the Cou rt the a bove sa id inju red were 08 broughtby Iqbal Singh Driver No774 of CTJ and this register r bears the signaturesof Iqbal Singh Il It also raises a doubt 7 Z about the a uthenticity of the version put forth by Dr Harpreet Singh PW21 the complainant in this case Apart from it the rough site plan Exhibit PNllIJJ of the place of accident prepared by Sub lnspector Gurdial Singh Officer PW 11 and the photographs Exhibits P l to P221 placed on record by the prosecution do not coi ncide with each other In the roughsite plan Exhibit PW11 the car is shown on the Ieft slde of the road whereas in the photographs the car is shown at the extreme right side of the road If the positioning of the car IS on the right side of the road facing towards Chandigarh it cannot be said that the driver of the car was driving it on the Ieft side of the road . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 0 4 w7 l Criminal Revision No1007 of 2003 Under the circumstances it appears to be such an accident which cannot be said to be because of rash and negligent driving of the 1 accusedldriver only It was a case of contributorynegligence The contributory negligence in realm of torts may be an 0 0 extenuatingcircumstance to mitigate the Iiability to pay the I damagesbut that cannot be a sole decisive factorto avoid the C Iiabilityof compensation However in crimi n a l j u risprudence if the i114ated veh icle had a lso contributed for the causation of the Z accident by contributory negligence and in the absence of any materialtoshow that only on account of rash and negligentdriving I of the accusedldriver the accident has occurred it wou Id not 08 be permissible under such circumstances to hold the accused clriver guilty of committing an offence The Iaw keeps a 7 Z clear distinction between cases of compositenegligence and contributorynegligence Jn the cases of composite negligence the drivers of both the vehicles would be guilty of rash and negligent d riving In a case of contributory negligenceno penaI liabiIity can be fastened on the accusedldriver Itisobviously for the reason that but for the contributory negligencethe accident could not have occurred For the aforesaid reasons I am of the considered opinion that the prosecutionhas not been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond a 11 reasonable doubts Consequently this petition succeeds The same is accordingly allowed the impugned judgments and the sentence orders . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 1 Criminal Revision NoO7 of 2003 passedby both the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner IS of the chargesframed against him it being a case of 1 contributorynegligence 0 6 0 July ili 2010 MOHINDER PAL 1 ak OUDGE I J C5 6A I Z r I 08 00 0 y m Z r . Anita 2012.10.30 16: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document