Criminal Revision No.2018 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2018 of 2003 Date of Decision 22.09.2010 Chanan Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.G.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The trial Court vide judgment dated 17.05.1996 slapped the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') with a sentence of one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for causing death of Ashok Kumar and injuring Narinder Singh complainant. His appeal was also dismissed on 12.09.2003. On 23.08.1987, Narinder Kumar complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant) alongwith his relative Ashok Kumar, a resident of Patiala, while riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HNK-1735 Mark “Yamaha”, was coming to Panipat. Ashok Kumar was sitting on the pillion. While reaching near Hotel Skylark, Narinder Kumar turned his motorcycle towards the petrol pump, in the meantime, the accused while driving bus bearing registration No.PJG-7479 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn, hit the motorcycle. As a result, Ashok Kumar fell down and was run over under the rear tyre of the bus and died whereas Narinder Kumar suffered injuries. On the aforesaid Criminal Revision No.2018 of 2003 2 statement of Ashok Kumar, case was registered against him and was investigated. Ultimately, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined Narinder Kumar complainant (PW1). He being the driver of the motorcycle explained the occurrence in all minute details. Suresh Kumar (PW2) is the identifier of the dead body of Ashok Kumar. Dr.Mahesh Parkash (PW3) proved the ruqa Ex.PW3/A, sent by him to Police Station, Panipat. Dr.R.S.Dahiya proved the post mortem report Ex.PW4/A, conducted upon the body of Ashok Kumar. Constable Rajinder Singh (PW5) has proved the signatures on the memos Ex.PW5/A & Ex.PW5/B vide which the offending bus and the motorcycle were taken into possession by the investigating Officer. Constable Kulbir Singh (PW6) is the witness to the memos Ex.PW5/A & Ex.PW5/B vide which the vehicles were taken into possession and the memo Ex.PW6/A vide which the driving licence of the accused was taken into possession. He is also the witness to the statement of Narinder Kumar which was sent for registration of the case. Madhav Khanna, Photorgrapher (PW7) has proved the photographs Ex.PW7/A & PW7/B and the negatives Ex.PW7/1 and Ex.PW7/2. Banti Devi (PW8) had also identified the dead body of Ashok Kumar. Sher Singh, Mechanic, Haryana Roadways, Sub Depot, Narnaul (PW9), who had mechanically examined the motorcycle as well as bus, has proved his reports Ex.PW9/A & Ex.PW9/B respectively. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied Criminal Revision No.2018 of 2003 3 all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Complainant Narinder Kumar, who was on the driver seat of the motor-cycle and having suffered injuries, while appearing as PW5 has reiterated the circumstances leading to the accident, stating that the accused was driving the bus rashly and negligently at the relevant time. He has stated that the accused had informed his name when he was asked about the same. He had also identified him in the Court. The bus was taken into custody from the spot. It was day time and complainant had the opportunity and occasion to see him, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. The bus bearing registration NoPJG-7479 as well as the driving licence of the accused were taken into possession by Constable Kulbir Singh (PW6), therefore, the argument that no test identification parade was conducted, pales into insignificance. The testimony of complainant Narinder Kumar (PW1) does not suffer from any blemish. He has withstood the test of cross-examination and his testimony stands corroborated by the medical evidence much less the autopsy report. The deceased was found having crush injuries which also support the fact that the deceased came under the rear tyre of the bus. This lone fact that the accused came under the rear tyre of the bus makes out as to how much negligent the accused was while driving the vehicle. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution is not fatal as to no prejudice is shown to have been caused to him for not examining him. He being not an eye witness of the occurrence Criminal Revision No.2018 of 2003 4 cannot be said to be the material witness. Though in case Thana Ram Versus State of Haryana 1996 (1) CLR, 264, non-examination of witness was held to be significant yet the facts as mentioned in the case are distinguishable. As in that case, mechanical reports, recovery memo and photographs were not proved but in the instant case eye-witness of the accident Narinder Kumar (PW1) has proved the various documents, Madhav Khanna, Photorgrapher (PW7) has proved the photographs Ex.PW7/A & PW7/B and mechanical reports Ex.PW9/A & Ex.PW9/B were proved by PW9 Sher Singh, Mechanic, Haryana Roadways, Sub Depot, Narnaul, Constable Kulbir Singh (PW6) has proved the statement Ex.PA of Narinder Kumar (PW1), on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thus, no material document remained unproved, therefore, in such circumstances, non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution in this case. As regards the quantum of sentence, the accused appears to have been awarded already lesser sentence, as compared to the gravity of the offence. The accidents in this part of the country are increasing day by day on account of their poor training and experience, consequently, the illiterate, rustic and unmannered drivers take lives of thousands by rash driving daily. If such offenders are left by taking lenient view in the matter then it is likely to deliver a wrong signals to the society that such offenders could also go unpunished. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.09.2010 mamta-II