Criminal Revision No.48 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.48 of 1992 Date of decision: 31.01.2008 Avtar Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu. Senior Advocate with, Mr.Vikrant Oberai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J(Oral) Vide separate order of even date, record has been taken on the case file. Criminal Revision No.48 of 1992 was filed by Avtar Singh son of Dalip Singh. He was named as accused in case FIR No.316 dated 12.10.1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. A perusal of the judgment of the court below shows that Bhagwant Singh lodged the FIR on 12.10.1985 with the allegation that he along with Bhupinder Pal Singh went to village Bakshiwala in order to make arrangement for a combine for harvesting paddy crop. It is stated that they were going on a scooter bearing registration No. CHN-4184. After reaching there, they came to know that the combine was working in the fields of Balwant Singh, Sarpanch of village Jassowal. Therefore, they returned back to village Bakshiwala. On the way at about 3.15 P.M. when they reached near Doctor's Colony, Patiala, a truck bearing registration No. Criminal Revision No.48 of 1992 2 PNT-9785 was coming in a rash and negligent manner. It was witnessed by them that two ladies proceeding on a moped make `Luna' bearing registration No.CHC-3845 were ahead of the truck. The offending truck is said to have hit the moped. One lady is said to have died at the spot, the other lady was rushed to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in a car. It is stated that the petitioner who was driving the truck had escaped from the spot. The other lady also died in the hospital. The names of the deceased were Kamlesh Kumari and Pritam Kaur. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW-1, Head Constable Jawahar Singh was a Motor Mechanic and submitted his mechanical report of the scooter and the moped. PW-2, S.Waryam Singh was a Photographer who took photographs of the spot, PW-3, Dr.O.P. Aggarwal, conducted the autopsy of both the deceased. PW-4, Bhupinder Pal Singh who was an eye witness of the occurrence has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. He stated in the Court that he was not in a position to identify the accused. He had further stated that he did not know the accused that he was the person who was driving the truck. He was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and was confronted with his duly previous recorded statement. In the cross- examination conducted by the accused, it was stated that he identified the accused on the asking of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. He further stated in the statement under Section 161 that no features, no marks of identification were given by him. PW-7, Balwant Singh has also not supported the prosecution case and demolished the prosecution case by stating that the name of the driver was not known to him and he has not got the same recorded in his statement and he was confronted with his previous statement. PW-8, Bhagwant Singh when examined has stated that he is unable to identify the accused. He further stated that he had apprehended the accused. When cross-examination made by the learned Criminal Revision No.48 of 1992 3 Assistant Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the accused is the same person who was apprehended at the spot. When cross-examination was conducted by the learned defence counsel for the accused, he stated that he never knew the accused and police never got the accused identified by him. PW-9, ASI Ved Parkash, is the Investigating Officer whereas PW-5, Surinder Singh and PW-6 Gurdeep Kumar had identified the bodies of the deceased in the inquest proceedings. Mr.Sidhu, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has made two submissions. Firstly, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identification of the accused. Secondly, the entire prosecution version cannot be believed as there was vital link missing regarding the arrest of the accused. Relying upon the testimony of the three witnesses, namely, PW-4 Bhupinder Pal Singh, PW-7, Balwant Singh and PW-8, Bhagwant Singh, he has stated that these witnesses were not reliable. They had been shifting their stand and had especially miserably failed to establish the identity of the petitioner as a driver of the truck. I am in agreement with the contentions of Mr.Sidhu. If we come to the evidence, it is found that Balwant Singh had stated that the accused was apprehended at the spot but the story set out in the FIR was that the accused escaped from the spot and his arrest was shown later. If the accused was apprehended at the spot then why his arrest was shown later. Probably, the prosecution case failed qua identification. It was got introduced from PW-8 that the accused was apprehended at the spot. Statement of PW-4, Bhupinder Pal Singh was that on the asking of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he had identified the accused, is to be taken with the pinch of salt. Not only the investigation in the present case is tainted but necessary ingredients especially the identification has not been proved by the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused was not known to the witnesses earlier. No features or marks of identification were given in the FIR. The prosecution Criminal Revision No.48 of 1992 4 has also failed to establish the ownership of the truck or to bring on record some evidence to say that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner in his capacity was the owner, employee or the driver who was driving the offending vehicle. As a result of the discussion above, the present revision petition is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the awarded to the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted from the charges. January 31,2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE