Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision:- 30.3.2011 Satvinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. H.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Rattu, DAG, Haryana. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused, Satvinder Singh, was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC by JMIC, vide his judgment dated 7.1.2005 and was sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC R.I for 3 months `300/- ---- 304A IPC R.I for 1 year `700/- R.I for 3 months Against that conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment dated 13.3.2006. The present revision has been filed against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 3.5.1995 Suresh Kumar constable/complainant PW1, Bhupinder Singh deceased, who was also constable and Gian Chand Constable were posted in police post Khijra. They had gone on patrol duty on motor-cycle bearing No. PJK-4276 Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) -2- (hereinafter referred to as the 'motorcycle'), which was being driven by the deceased. When they were proceedings from Khijrabad towards Chuharpur at about 12.30 AM and were driving the motor-cycle on the left side of the road, the accused came driving truck bearing registration No.PIP-5637 (hereinafter referred to as the 'truck') from the opposite side at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently. He dashed the truck against the motorcycle as a result of which the same broke down. The complainant fell on one side of the road whereas Gian Chand fell on the other side. The legs of the deceased came under the motorcycle, which, as a result of the impact, caught fire. The deceased received burn and other injuries and died at the spot itself. The truck was stopped by the accused at some distance and he was duly identified by the complainant in the light of the truck, as he was known to him previously also. After leaving the truck, the accused escaped from that place. After leaving Gian Singh at spot, Suresh Kumar complainant came to the Police Post and made his statement Ex.PA before Om Parkash ASI PW7, who after recording the police proceedings PW7/A sent that statement to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex.PW7/B was recorded under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A IPC. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW7/C. He called Suresh Kumar photographer PW9 to the spot, who took the photographs Ex.PW9/1 to PW9/10. The truck was found lying at the spot with the front wheel punctured. The cows were loaded in the truck. The truck with the cows was taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB. The ASI prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to the hospital for post mortem Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) -3- examination. The complainant and Gian Chand were medically examined by Dr. Hari Om Gupta PW10, who found three and six injuries, respectively, on their person and the same were detailed in M.L reports. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. T.K.Gupta PW5, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries and burns, which were sufficient to cause the death in the natural course. The broken motorcycle and truck were mechanically tested by Dharam Pal Head Constable PW6, who gave his reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, respectively. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and the documents of the truck were taken into possession. After the completion thereof, the challan was put in before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and Section 4-B/8 of the Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt prosecution examined Suresh Kumar Constable PW1, ASI Mohinder Singh PW2, Karnail Singh PW3, UGC Charan Singh PW4, Dr. T.K.Gupta PW5, HC Dharam Pal PW6, SI Om Parkash PW7, Tej Pal Singh PW8, Suresh Kumar, Photographer PW9 and Dr. Hari Om Gupta PW10. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He was called upon to enter on Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) -4- his defence, but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. While assailing the conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution failed to prove that the accident took place as a result of negligent driving of the truck by the accused. It is very much apparent from the photograph Ex.PW9/4 that the front wheel of the truck was punctured and as such it was not possible for the accused to control the same. The accident took place as a result of the punctured wheel of the truck. According to the prosecution itself, three persons were riding on the motorcycle, which was meant for riding of two persons. Thus, the complainant, the deceased and the third rider were themselves responsible for the contributory negligence. In these circumstances, the accused could not have been convicted for the aforesaid offences. He also submitted that the accused was never arrested at the spot and he was identified by the complainant in the Court for the first time. That identification, in the absence of any corroboration by way of test identification parade, is meaningless and no reliance can be placed upon the same. The identity of the accused was never established in the Court. In the last, he submitted that the accused is standing his protracted trial since the year 2000 and prayed for reducing the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him to the period already undergone, which is about one and a half month. There is no merit in the submissions of the counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the truck was being driven by the accused negligently and that the accident took place on Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) -5- account of the contributory negligence of the deceased himself. No doubt from the said photograph it is very much apparent that the front right side wheel of the truck was lying punctured, but the question arises, when the same got punctured. It is that side of the truck which had struck in the motorcycle and even the mechanic, who mechanically tested the truck, had found that portion of the truck in damaged condition. There was every possibility of this wheel of the truck getting punctured on account of the striking thereof in the motorcycle. The complainant was never cross- examined by the accused on that aspect of the case and no such fact was elicited during his cross-examination on the basis of which it may be held that the wheel of the truck had punctured before the accident itself. Merely on account of the fact that three persons were riding the motorcycle, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the deceased, who was driving the same, unless something is brought on the record and that on account of the riding of three persons the motorcycle went out of the control of the deceased. It was categorically stated by the complainant PW1 that the motorcycle was being driven on the left side of the road when the truck was dashed in the same. No such fact could be extracted during his cross- examination on the basis of which it may be held that the accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased himself. The position would have been different if the accused was not already known to the complainant before the accident itself. In that eventuality, it could have been said that the identification made by him in the Court for the first time was meaningless or weak type of evidence. He had specifically stated during his examination-in-chief that the accused was Crl. Rev. No. 667 of 2006(O&M) -6- already known to him and that part of his statement was never challenged during his cross-examination. From that unchallenged statement, it can easily be held that the accused was already known to him. Therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court did not commit any illegality while placing reliance on his statement regarding the identity of the accused made in the Court, even in the absence of test identification parade. There is no ground to set aside the well reasoned conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. In such like cases where a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving were found to be harsh, there is no question of reducing the sentence, which is already on the lower side, on the ground that the accused has stood protracted trial for a number of years. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is upheld. He be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining sentence so imposed upon him. Records be returned forthwith. March 30, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge