Criminal Revision No.540 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.540 of 2005. Date of Decision : 16.3.2011. Sunder Lal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated February 15th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 21st, 2003 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Muktsar, whereby, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.1000/- RI for 1 month 304-A IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/- SI for 6 months Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts are these: on June 2nd, 1997 at about 7.30 am Karamjit Kaur (deceased) was on her way to her school on bicycle. She was being followed by her cousin Surjit Singh (uncle's son) (PW-1) on his own bicycle. When they reached at Bus-stand Rupana, Karamjit Kaur met her class-mates and proceeded to her school. Meanwhile, a truck bearing No. RJ-19G-6242 driven by the petitioner at a fast speed in rash and negligent manner came from Criminal Revision No.540 of 2005 2 behind and struck against Karamjit Kaur. She fell down. Her father Sukhdev Singh (PW-2) also reached the spot. She was brought to the private clinic of Dr. Sukhwinder Singh (PW-3). She was given first aid and was referred to Government Hospital. She was brought to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot. She was admitted in the hospital. She died on July 10th, 1997. 3. On June 5th, 1997 Avtar Singh-Investigator (PW-9) received message from control room, Muktsar that Karamjit Kaur was admitted in Government Hospital, Faridkot. On receipt of message, Avtar Singh reached the Government Hospital and moved application (Exhibit PW-7/A) to the Medical Officer seeking his opinion as to whether Karamjit Kaur was fit to make statement or not. The Medical Officer opined in the negative. Till June 7th, 1997, it could not be known inspite of the best efforts made by the Investigator as to how she received injuries as there was no eye witness account available by that time. It was so deposed by Avtar Singh (PW-9) before the trial Court. 4. On June 7th, 1997 Surjit Singh (PW-1) met Avtar Singh-investigator at Bus stand, Rupana and made statement (Exhibit PA) giving the details of the accident as described in paragraph No.2 of this judgment. The Investigator appended his endorsement (Exhibit PB) on the same. FIR (Exhibit PC) was registered against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was arrested on December 27th, 1997. 6. On completion of investigation, the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 7. The questions arising for consideration in this revision are: (i) whether prosecution could successfully explain the delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR ? and; (ii) whether the accident took place with truck RJ-19G-6242 being driven by the petitioner as alleged ? 8. In this case, eye witness account has been Criminal Revision No.540 of 2005 3 rendered by Surjit Singh (PW-1) and Sukhdev Singh (PW-2). Sukhdev Singh was cousin of the deceased and Surjit Singh was her father. Both of them have stated that they noted the number of the truck on the spot but they did not lodge report with the Police. The explanation put forth was that being unlettered, they never thought of reporting the mater to the Police though Surjit Singh has admitted that he was matriculate. It was also stated by them that on the asking of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, they lodged the report. The distance between spot and the seat of Police Station Sadar Muktsar is 5 miles as find mention in the FIR (Exhibit PC). Avtar Singh- Investigator (PW-9) had received information from the Police control room, Muktsar about the admission of the deceased in the Government Hospital, Faridkot on June 5th, 1997. He reached there on June 6th, 1997. He could not record the statement of deceased as she was unfit to make statement. At that time, mother of deceased was present in the hospital. Till June 7th, 1997, no eye witness came forward although Investigator tried his best. The mother of deceased who was present in the hospital could at least tell that her daughter received injuries in the road accident having been caused by a truck and the accident was witnessed by her nephew Surjit Singh and husband Sukhdev Singh. In that event, it would have been very easy for the Investigator to record the statement of the eye witness on June 6th, 1997 itself. However, Surjit Singh-the eye witness, for the first time, came forward on June 7th, 1997. It is unbelievable that Surjit Singh and Sukhdev Singh did not lodge report to the Police because they were illiterate particularly when Surjit Singh was matriculate. It appears that number of the truck and name of its driver was introduced later on by the eye witnesses for the reasons best known to them. 9. From the evidence it is clear that prosecution failed to explain the delay of 5 days in lodging report to the Police. The explanation put forth is neither cogent nor convincing. The identification of the truck or its driver was not established. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, both the Courts below Criminal Revision No.540 of 2005 4 fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, the revision petition is accepted and the judgments and orders under challenge are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.3.2011. SN