In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 231 of 2002 Date of decision: 17.04.2009 Gurdial Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Gurdial Singh accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was tried and convicted vide judgment dated 13.2.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 304- A IPC and further to pay fine of Rs.300/- under Section 279 IPC. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. In brief, the facts are that on 20.11.1994, ASI Harjinder Singh along with PHG Kashmir Singh was present at Bus stand Rayya, opposite bawa market, in connection with election duty. At about 1.15 p.m., the petitioner, while driving the truck bearing registration No.PUA-6331 rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, came and struck against the passengers standing at the bus stand, resultantly Charan Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh, and another unidentified lady suffered injuries. The said lady died at the spot, whereas, Charan Kaur and Bachan Singh died later on. On receiving QST message, ASI Ajit Singh along with other police officers reached at the spot, recorded statement of ASI Harjinder Singh and sent ruqa, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The case was investigated and and the petitioner was challaned. The petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Crl. Revision No. 231 of 2002 -2- *** In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined C. Satwant Singh (PW1), Swaran Singh (PW2), LC Jasbir Singh (PW3), ASI Sukhwinder Singh (PW4), Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW5) and ASI Harjinder Singh (PW6). In his statement under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He also examined Inder Singh (DW1) in his defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prime questions to determine in this case are “whether presence of ASI Harjinder Singh at the spot, at the time of occurrence is probable. If so, whether the prosecution has been able to prove rashness and negligence of the petitioner?” None of the witnesses, who were admittedly standing at the bus stand Rayya, may be relatives of the deceased, neither have been cited as witnesses nor examined by the prosecution. The case is based on the testimony of the only solitary statement of ASI Harjinder Singh (PW6). Having scrutinized the statement of ASI Harjinder Singh (PW6), his presence at the spot is doubtful. None of the documents have been brought forth for proving his presence in connection with the election duty at the Bus Stand Rayya. The other admitted fact that he was present along with PHG Kashmir Singh also belies his presence because Kashmir Singh was the best witness to prove the presence of Harjinder Singh and also about the happening of the accident. It would also be pertinent to mention here that actually Harjinder Singh is an introduced witness as in ruqa Ex.PW6/A he stated that he had come to know that one Jaswant Singh Contable also suffered injuries in the accident. The verbatim statement of ASI Harjinder Singh is reproduced as under :- “mainu eh ve pata lagaya hai ke ek Jaswant Singh police mulazim bhi zakhmi hoya hai.” Crl. Revision No. 231 of 2002 -3- *** From the tenor of the aforesaid words it transpires that he came to know about the injuries to Jaswant Singh later on. Had he been present at the spot, then he would have immediately stated that during accident, Charan Kaur, Bachan Singh, Jaswant Singh and unidentified lady had suffered injuries. Further more, the prosecution has proved the postmortem examination of only Charan Kaur through Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW5), but no doctor has been examined the prove the death of unidentified lady and Bachan Singh and injuries to Jaswant Singh. Even Jaswant Singh Constable has not been examined to prove that the casualties allegedly took place during the accident. Jaswant Singh allegedly being the injured person and as such stamped witness, was the best person to prove the accident. It also deserves to notice that in the absence of medical evidence of Bachan Singh and unidentified lady, it cannot be said that they had also died as a result of the accident. Consequently, that also belies the presence of ASI Harjinder Singh at the spot. The Investigating Officer has proved the postmortem report only of Bachan Singh but nothing has come on record if Bachan Singh died on account of the accident. The Investigating Officer did not send Charan Kaur, Bachan Singh and Jaswant Singh to the hospital. The Investigating Officer who had conducted the inquest of Charan Kaur also was not examined. While scrutinizing the statement of ASI Harjinder Singh, he does not appear to be reliable witness. Though he has stated that the truck was coming at a high speed but he does not say as to at what speed he was coming. Though in the ruqa, it is mentioned that Jaswant Singh was injured during the accident but in his statement in the Court he says that he does not know if he was injured. Though ASI Sukhwinder Singh says that he had gone to the place of occurrence along with other police officials yet Harjinder Singh states that none was accompanying the Investigating Officer except Sukhwinder Singh ASI. ASI Ajit Singh states that the witnesses present at the spot refused to make the statements, but he states that he did not record the statements of any witness from the public. Harjinder Singh states that after making the statement he had left the place for his duty, whereas, ASI Ajit Singh states that ASI Sukhwinder Singh, even after making statement, remained with him and Harjinder Singh Crl. Revision No. 231 of 2002 -4- *** remained with him till the completion of the proceedings. The other factor which goes to belie the presence of ASI Harjinder Singh is that his presence was not recorded at the site plan, application for postmortem examination Ex.PW7/c and the inquest report. Had he remained present at the spot then he being the sole eye witness to the occurrence would have been associated for attesting the aforesaid valuable documents. That apart, the testimony of Harjinder Singh does not find any corroboration from the medical evidence as in the absence of postmortem reports of Charan Kaur, Bachan Singh and unidentified lady, it could not be said that those were crush injuries as a result of which they died. The material witnesses including Jaswant Singh and Kashmir Singh or any other villagers have not been examined. The photographs of the place of occurrence have not been proved. The aforesaid serious infirmities create a dent in the prosecution case which could not be taken note of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Thus, the judgment having been based on the misreading of the evidence deserves to be set aside. Consequently this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused-petitioner of the charges framed against him. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if deposited by him, be refunded. April 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge