Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 1999. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 1999. Date of Decision : 8.10.2009. Gordhan ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed the judgment dated September 1st, 1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 3rd, 1997 and December 4th, 1997 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar was partly accepted. 2. Petitioner was tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The trial Magistrate convicted him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and one year respectively, with default stipulation. The Appellate Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from one year to nine months. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on May 31st, 1991 at about 5 PM, Hawa Singh (PW-2) along with his father Beg Raj (deceased) and one Gopal was going towards village Ghursal. When they reached near the fields of one Partap, a truck bearing No. RJI 1473 owned by Ram Narain resident of Chaudhariwal known to Hawa Singh (PW-2) came from behind and ran over Beg Raj. Beg Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 1999. 2 Raj died on the spot. The driver managed to escape with the truck. Hawa Singh reached Police Station and made his statement (Exhibit PW-2/A). FIR was recorded. Police reached the spot and completed the necessary formalities, that is, scene of occurrence was got photographed and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted. 4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on June 2nd, 1991, Hawa Singh again made statement to the Police adding that the truck No. RJI 1473 was not the offending vehicle rather it was truck No. HNH 1415 being driven by Gordhan-petitioner. On the supplementary statement of Hawa Singh, petitioner was arraigned as an accused for causing the accident. 5. The only eye-witness in this case is Hawa Singh (PW-2). Gopal eye witness has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. At the first instance, Hawa Singh gave the number of the offending vehicle to be RJI 1473 but later on, after two days of the occurrence, another truck bearing No. HNH 1415 was introduced. No explanation worth the name has been put forth by the prosecution to probablise the latter version of Hawa Singh and to ignore the first one. No evidence has been led to prove as to from where and how Hawa Singh identified the truck was being driven by the petitioner. The statement of Hawa Singh to the effect that truck involved in the accident bore number HNH 1415 is also not believable because in his statement (Exhibit PW-2/A), it was specifically stated by him that he identified truck No. RJI 1473 owned by Ram Narain resident of Chaudhariwala. What calls for pointed notice is that the two registration numbers are different and distinct altogether. There is no similarity or near similarity. This being so, the probability of committing an error with regard to the registration number was simply not there. It is obvious that the introduction of the other registration number subsequently was an act of deliberation but without foundation. It was for Hawa Singh (PW-2) to explain satisfactorily but the question remains un-explained. Why truck Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 1999. 3 number in the first instance was stated to be RJI 1473. Why it was changed to HNH 1415 after two days. This is glaring flaw in the prosecution case. Unfortunately, the Courts below over-looked this basic defect in the prosecution which goes to the very root and erroneously held the petitioner to be guilty. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable and are hereby set-aside. 6. Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Amount of fine imposed, be refunded to the petitioner, if it was deposited by him. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 8.10.2009. SN