Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 Date of decision:- 6.4.2011. Gurjant Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused, Gurjant Singh, was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, vide judgment dated 19.7.2004 and sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC R.I for six months `1000/- R.I for one month 337 IPC R.I for six months `500/- R.I for one month 304-A IPC R.I for two years `2000/- R.I for one month He filed an appeal against that conviction and sentence, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 15.2.2005. Now he has preferred the present revision against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Amar Singh complainant PW1, Satnam Singh PW2, Jugraj Singh deceased and Darshan Singh deceased had been doing the work of labourers in Grain Market Bhagta. On Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -2- 4.1.1998, at about 5.30 PM, they were coming back to their village Kotha Guru on bicycles. Jugraj Singh and Satnam Singh were having their independent bicycles, whereas the complainant was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle, which was paddled by Darshan Singh. They were still at a distance of 15-20 Karams from grid station of Bhagta, when the accused came driving bus of a private company from the opposite side rashly and at very fast speed. Seeing the speed of the bus all of them took their bicycles on their left side on the katcha portion of the road. Still the accused struck the bus in their bicycles, as a result of which the complainant was thrown on one side, whereas Darshan Singh and Jugraj Singh were crushed under that bus. The accused stopped the bus and came to the complainant after getting down from the same. He admitted his guilt and made a request to the complainant and also disclosed his name, parentage and address. The complainant was removed to the Government Hospital and was admitted at that place. He was medically examined by the doctor and injuries were found on his person. Doctor sent his ruqa Ex.PF/B to the police station about his admission in the hospital. On the receipt of that ruqa, ASI Gurdial Singh came to the hospital and made an application for enquiring about the fitness of the complainant to make his statement. He was declared fit to make statement by the doctor. Thereafter, the ASI recorded his statement of Ex.PA, in which he disclosed the above said facts. The ASI made his endorsement Ex.PW5/C on that statement and sent the same to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex.PW5/D was recorded. The ASI came to the place of accident and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW5/E with correct marginal notes. He called the photographer to the spot, who Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -3- took the photographs. The bus, which was found lying parked at that place, was taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB. The bicycles were taken into possession, vide memos Exs. PC and PD. The ASI made inquest reports in respect of the dead bodies of both the deceased and sent the same to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of Jugraj Singh was performed by Dr. Rajinder Garg PW3, who found six ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs. The autopsy on the dead body of Darshan Singh was also performed. Ante mortem injuries were found on his dead body and it was opined by the doctor that injury No.5 was sufficient to cause the death. On 8.1.1998, the bus was mechanically tested by Harminder Singh, constable mechanic, who found the same to be in mechanical order and gave his report accordingly. In the course of the investigation, the accused was arrested and after the completion thereof the challan was put in before SDJM, Phul, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A and 337 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined Amar Singh PW1, Satnam Singh PW2, Dr.Rajinder Garg PW3, Harminder Singh Constable PW4, ASI Gurdial Singh PW5 and Major Singh Constable PW6. After the close of the evidence by the prosecution, 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 explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -4- innocence and false implication. He stated that he was never the driver on the offending bus. He was called upon to enter on his defence and he examined Baltej Singh DW1 in his defence evidence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution case is based upon the statements of the related witnesses and on account of their close relationship with the deceased reliance was not to be placed upon the same. It is very much clear from the statement of Satnam Singh PW2 that he was not present at the spot and has been introduced into the picture subsequently. The statement made by him in the Court stands contradicted from the facts as incorporated in the rough site plan. In the absence of the test identification parade, no reliance is to be place upon the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses so far as those relates to the identification of the accused. The identification made by them in the Court for the first time is meaningless and identity of the accused does not stand establish from those statements. In the last, he submitted that from the defence evidence produced by the accused, it stands proved that he was not a driver on the offending bus at the time of accident and as such he could not have been convicted. There is no rule of law that the statements of the related witnesses are to be discarded out-rightly. It is now well settled that conviction of the accused can be based even on the statement of the related witnesses, if those are found to be trustworthy and reliable. In fact a related witness is the last person to allow the actual culprit to go scot free and to implicate innocent person as an accused. However, an additional duty is caste upon the Court Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -5- to scrutinize the statements of the related witnesses with care and caution. The prosecution story in the Court was unfolded by Amar Singh PW1. He deposed in detail about all the facts which constitute the prosecution version and which are detailed above. His statement finds corroboration from the statement of Satnam Singh. Both of them made categorical statements that they, along with Jugraj Singh and Darshan Singh, were coming on their bicycles, from Bhagta towards their village when the accused came driving the bus from the opposite side and struck the same in their bicycles though they had gone on their extreme left side on the katcha portion of the road and that in this accident Jugraj Singh and Darshan Singh were crushed to death and Amar Singh received injuries. The re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence is not permissible, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court are perverse or illegal or are the result of mis-reading of evidence. After having gone through the records of the case, it has been found that the findings so recorded are neither perverse nor illegal nor can be said to be the misreading of the evidence. The presence of Satnam Singh, in view of the convincing statement made by him in the Court cannot be doubted merely on the ground that he stands contradicted by site plan, which was never prepared at his instance. Nothing has crept in his testimony or in the testimony of Amar Singh, which may show that they were never present at the place of occurrence and have made their statements in the Court, merely on account of their relationship with the deceased. It is a fact that after the accident the accused was identified by the Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -6- witnesses in the Court for the first time and no test identification parade was held during the investigation. No doubt the identification made in the Court for the first time is the weak type of evidence, but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as to how much reliance is to be placed upon the same. It is well settled that when the witnesses had the opportunity to interact with the accused and to note his distinctive features at the time of occurrence then the reliance is to be placed upon their statements made in the Court about the identity of the accused even in the absence of any test identification parade. It has been stated by both these witnesses that after the accident the accused got down from the bus and came to the complainant and not only asked for pardon but also made a request to him. Thus the witnesses had the opportunity to note down his distinctive features which enabled them to identify him in the Court subsequently. The facts of the present case are such that reliance is to be placed upon the identification of the accused made in the Court for the first time. No doubt the accused produced defence evidence to the effect that at the time of accident he was not a driver on the offending bus, but that evidence consists of the statement of Baltej Singh DW1 who is an interested witness, being the employee of the company who owned the offending bus. It is very much clear that this evidence produced by the accused is after thought. It was never the case of the accused, during the recording of the evidence by the prosecution, that he was not the driver on the offending bus. He never put any such fact to any of the prosecution witnesses. During his cross-examination, Baltej Singh DW1 could not tell as to who was the Crl. Rev. No. 425 of 2005 -7- driver at the time of the accident on the offending bus. He also stated that he had come to know about the present case against the accused only 4/5 months before he made a statement in the Court. That statement was made by him on 9.6.2004. Perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that after the offending bus was ordered to be released on supardari, it was he who had furnished the supardari bond. That supardari bond was furnished on 10.1.1998. He must have come to know about the registration of the case against the accused at that time. He cannot be said to be a reliable witness. He never appeared before the police or any other authority with the plea that a false case has been registered against the accused, though he had the knowledge of the registration of the case against the accused. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that trial Court and appellate Court committed an illegality, while not placing reliance on this evidence produced by the accused. From the above discussion, I conclude that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is upheld. This order be certified to the learned trial Court for taking appropriate action. Records be returned forthwith. April 6, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge Whether to be referred to the reporter? No.