Criminal Revision No.2054 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2054 of 2004 Date of Decision 10.11.2010 Rachpal Singh @ Pala ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, with Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 06.09.2004, passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 24.05.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Factual matrix of the case is that on 31.01.1995, the complainant Iqbal Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.PB-02-C-9677, driven by his son Gurmej Singh. He had started this bus from Amritsar and it was to reach to Boparai Baj Singh Wala. On that day, the complainant alongwith Baljit Singh, his friend, a resident of village Kasail, boarded the said bus from village Chhehartta. At about 8:00 a.m. when the said mini bus reached near curve Criminal Revision No.2054 of 2004 2 of village Boparai in the area of Khurmaniya, then the accused while driving a private bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and struck against their bus. Resultantly, Gurmej Singh and few other passengers suffered injuries. However, Gurmej Singh died later. On the aforesaid statement, made by the complainant, the case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, the accused was challaned. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined complainant Iqbal Singh (PW1), Baljit Singh (PW2), Balwinder Singh, photographer (PW3), Sohan Singh (PW4), LC Jasbir Singh (PW5), Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Officer, SGTB Hospital (PW6), Surinder Singh, Clerk, DTO Office (PW7) and Head Constable Surinder Pal Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Dr.Manmohan Singh, Retired Professor, SGTB Hospital (DW1). The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The golden element to bring home charge against the accused was the proof of his rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle by the accused. Driver side of the ill-fated bus, driven by the accused, struck against the driver side of the bus driven by the deceased. The question with regard to rashness and negligence could be determined from the evidence of two witnesses namely Iqbal Singh (PW1) and Baljit Singh (PW2). Out of these two witnesses, Iqbal Singh is the father of the deceased and Baljit Singh (PW2) is his close friend. Both these witnesses are from different Criminal Revision No.2054 of 2004 3 villages i.e. Dhande and Kasail. Both of them have not uttered a word if the accused was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Both of them have stated only that the accused was driving it at a high speed. To drive a vehicle at a high speed does not amount to be a rash and negligent act. The particular speed may be high for one person and normal for the other. Nothing has come on record as to at what speed, the accused was driving the vehicle. Further both the witnesses have not given the speed of the bus at which it was being driven. Though with the alleged striking of the bus, driven by the accused, Gurmej Singh died and the said two witnesses, who are stated to be sitting behind the driver seat, did not suffer even a scratch, which further indicates that they were not present in the bus and had not seen the occurrence. Even otherwise, their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. It was a winter season. The bus had started from the house of Iqbal Singh but he failed to explain as to why he did not board this bus from his house itself. The complainant has not explained the destination, where he was to go by bus. Complainant has stated that he alongwith Baljit Singh (PW2) had gone to see another bus for purchase but they changed their mind and then they started for Chhehartta from where they boarded this bus. It is not explained; for which place they were to go from village Chhehartta. He has failed to state as to in which bus they reached at village Chhehartta. It is stated that they had gone to see the bus bearing registration No.PB-02-9918, owned by one Ajit Singh but Ajit Singh has not been examined to prove that Iqbal Singh wanted to purchase his bus. None of the passengers, who had suffered injuries, was examined in order to prove that it was the accused who was driving the offending bus. The conductor of the bus namely Kuldip Singh has also not been examined. Criminal Revision No.2054 of 2004 4 While confronting with the statement Ex.PA, complainant Iqbal Singh had disclosed that the bus was coming from Attari side but this fact was not found in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, Rachpal Singh, the driver of the offending bus, had also suffered serious injuries but the complainant did not record the aforesaid fact in his statement. In this case, Gurmej Singh (deceased) was also not physically fit to drive the vehicle. It has been admitted by the complainant that earlier in an accident, Gurmej Singh had suffered injury in his right leg and an artificial plate was installed in the leg. On conjoint reading of the statements of both the witnesses, it transpires that they were not present at the spot and they were introduced lateron. Their presence at the spot is doubtful from another angle. Admittedly, they had not started from the house at 6:00 a.m. when the deceased had left the house, however, they had started at 7:00 a.m. The accident took place at 8:00 a.m. Gurmej Singh had taken the bus at the place of occurrence within one hour i.e. 8:00 a.m. The complainant having started from his house at 7:00 a.m., had first gone to the house of Baljit Singh (PW2) and then from there they reached Chhehartta at about 7:15 a.m. from where they boarded the bus, thus, their arrival at such a distant place within such a short time is very suspicious. It is further noticed that the inquest report Ex.PW4/A does not bear the signatures of either Baljit Singh or Iqbal Singh. Had they been present at the spot then Investigating Officer must have recorded their presence at the time of making inquest report. The other document, prepared at the very initial stage, also do not bear the signatures of the witnesses. Criminal Revision No.2054 of 2004 5 Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., recorded by the trial Court, is also defective. All the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused. No such question was put to the accused that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The only question put to him was that a bus bearing registration No.PAB-1192 came from the side of Atari in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the bus driven by Gurmej Singh. In the absence of the non-examination of the accused with regard to the fact that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently at that time cannot be used against him. The aforesaid facts and circumstances have not been noticed by the trial Court and the evidence has not been properly appreciated. Resultantly, judgments have been rendered as invalid and perverse. For the aforesaid discussion, I accept the present petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charges framed against him. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Fine, if any deposited, be refunded. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 10.11.2010 mamta-II