Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 Date of decision: 23.9.2009 Mohinder Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Mohinder Singh filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 24.4.2000 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.1998 passed by JMIC, Bathinda, was dismissed. As per judgment dated 31.3.1998, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo RI for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 304-A IPC. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.11.1994, Gora Lal, complainant, on a scooter was going to Jaitu from Bathinda. Ashok Kumar, his cousin brother, was also going to Jaitu on his separate scooter. At about 2.30/3.00 PM when they were near FCI godowns in the area of Goniana towards Village Chand Bhan, then sighted Maruti Car No.PB-04A-6363 while coming from the opposite side. The car was being driven rashly and Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 2 negligently. Without blowing horn, the car was struck against the scooter of Ashok Kumar. In the accident, Ashok Kumar received multiple grievous injuries and had died on the spot. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of maruti car. After the accident, the accused had fled away from the spot. Statement of Gora Lal was recorded and after making endorsement, the statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused was charged under Sections 304-A/279 IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined number of witnesses. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Ultimately, the accused was convicted and sentenced by learned JMIC, Bathinda, as stated above. Against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1998, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not known to the complainant. He was shown to the witnesses in the police station. Complainant was not present at the spot. No test identification parade was arranged. When identity of the petitioner is doubtful, then the petitioner should have been acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 3 Learned State counsel argued that the accident was at about 2.30 PM, whereas statement of the complainant was recorded before 4.30 PM. Inquest report was prepared immediately and in the inquest report, number of offending vehicle and name of the petitioner were mentioned. If the petitioner was not driving the car at the relevant time, then question is how his name figured in the FIR and in the inquest report before 4.30 PM. In case the petitioner was shown to the eye witness in the police station, then he should have covered his face and requested the Court to arrange test identification parade. Till today, no complaint to any authority. Complainant was present at the time of occurrence. He was going on a separate scooter. The petitioner cannot argue that there was no rash and negligent driving. If submission of the petitioner is that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time but he was not at fault, only then he can argue that there was no rash and negligent driving. First submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that no test identification parade was arranged. Identity of the petitioner is doubtful. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be not reasonable one. Occurrence was at 2.30 PM. Complainant and his deceased cousin brother on separate scooters were going from Bathinda to village Jaitu. When they were near the FCI godowns, then sighted Marui Car No.PB-04-A-6363 while coming from the opposite side. At 4.30 PM, statement of the complainant was recorded. After making endorsement on the statement of the complainant, same was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Evidence shows that after few minutes, police came to the spot. Inquest report was prepared. As per inquest report, police came to know about the accident at about 2.30/3.00 Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 4 PM. While preparing inquest report, number of vehicle and name of the petitioner were categorically mentioned. If the petitioner was not driving the car at the relevant time and had fled away from the spot, then question is how name of the petitioner and number of vehicle was mentioned in the FIR within two hours of the accident. In case the petitioner was shown to the witness then the petitioner should have covered his face and requested the Court to arrange test identification parade. When the petitioner was named in the FIR, then no question of showing the petitioner to the eye witness because arrest of the petitioner was on 21.11.1994, whereas the occurrence was on 17.11.1994. Photographs are on the file, which show the condition of the car, scooter and the dead body. The car is lying damaged. Question is how the car was brought on the spot and how it was damaged. Till today, no complaint to any authority that the car in damaged condition was brought to the spot from the house of the petitioner simply to implicate him. The petitioner has not given any explanation how the car was damaged. Photographs further show that the car cannot be brought from the house of the petitioner to the spot simply to have photographs. Before present occurrence, the petitioner had no enmity with the complainant party. So without enmity, there was no idea to name the petitioner by leaving real culprit. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the complainant was not present at the spot. The petitioner was named because the deceased was an employee of police department, but submission of learned counsel seems to be not reasonable one. If the deceased was an employee of police department, then no bar to apprehend the real culprit and implicate innocent person by leaving the real culprit. When complainant Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 5 party had no enmity with the petitioner and the accident was during day time, then there was no idea to name the petitioner. Presence of the complainant was natural at the time of accident because he along with deceased was going towards Village Jaitu from the side of Bathinda. Deceased was the cousin brother of the complainant. So at 2.30 PM, presence of complainant Gora Lal was natural. Defence version of the petitioner is that the car in damaged condition was lying in Goniana Mandi and on suspicion, he was implicated in this case. But no one appeared to state that the car in damaged condition was lying in Goniana Mandi at the shop of such and such person. If the car was lying in damaged condition at Goniana Mandi, then question is how the damaged car had been brought to the spot simply to implicate the petitioner. Till today, no complaint to any authority. Mechanic was not produced to state that the car was lying at the shop for repair purpose. So defence version is after thought. At the time of arguments, learned State counsel produced affidavit of Jiwan Kumar, Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda. Note on the affidavit shows that the petitioner was already released on 13.5.2000 after the expiry of sentence giving the benefit of Government remissions. Custody certificate is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the custody certificate, petition may be dismissed. Occurrence was on 17.11.1994. Petitioner was directed to undergo RI for one year and six months under Section 304-A IPC. According to certificate, the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment. In view of the statement of complainant Gora Lal, prosecution was in a position to establish that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving Crl.Revision No.458 of 2000 6 of the petitioner, but as per certificate, the petitioner has already been released. In view of the certificate, the petition without merit is dismissed. 23.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE