IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision Petition No. 600 of 1998 Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 Baljinder Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate with Shri Dharminder Singh, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab. ....... Respondent through Shri B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 19.5.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.9.1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') was dismissed. On 26.10.1988, a motor vehicular accident is alleged to have been caused by the petitioner while driving truck bearing registration no. Crl.Revision Petition No.600 of 1998 -2- .... PJV-9755, which had struck against car bearing registration no. PAP-219 and in the process, two persons lost their lives while another was seriously injured. The police had investigated the matter and prima facie, found the petitioner to be involved in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted against him and he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of the I.P.C. The prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses and after appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the petitioner was guilty of having caused the accident and consequent death of two persons. It accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under vide judgment and order dated 5.9.1995:- (i)to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of four months, under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.; and (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Section 337 of the I.P.C. However, the sentence of imprisonment under both the counts was directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the Crl.Revision Petition No.600 of 1998 -3- .... appellate Court, which has resulted in the filing of the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the out-set, contended that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petition with the commission of the alleged offences. He has referred to the fact that the truck was owned by Rajinder Pal Singh and the prosecution could not establish as to who was its driver. It was further contended that it is merely a presumption that since Nirbhai Singh, father of the petitioner, was the owner of the truck in question, he (petitioner) was its driver. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this conclusion is based on no evidence on record. He referred to the statement of Rajinder Pal Singh made on 7.5.1992 that he was owner of the truck in question and that he would produce it on the dates of hearing. Reference was also made to the registration certificate which bears out this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was for Rajinder Pal Singh to prove as to who was the driver of his truck at the time of the accident in question as he was its owner. He further argued that it was on the basis of this evidence that the petitioner could not have been convicted and sentenced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that there is over-whelming evidence on record to suggest the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offences which, in any way, stands established as per the reasoning given by the Courts below and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have Crl.Revision Petition No.600 of 1998 -4- .... perused the record. Concededly, the identity of the petitioner and his connection with the offending vehicle have not been established beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The truck in question was owned by Rajinder Pal Singh. He has not been associated with the investigation to establish the fact as to whether the petitioner was the driver of his truck or working in his employment. It was for the prosecution in these circumstances to have established as to what was the relation of the petitioner with Rajinder Pal Singh. It was also for the prosecution to have established as to whether the petitioner was the employee of Rajinder Pal Singh or he was entrusted with some assignment with the truck in question on the date of occurrence. In the absence of such facts on record, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner was the driver of the offending truck at the time of accident. There is no doubt that the truck in question was involved in the accident, but that ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of causing that accident unless there is cogent material on the record that he was driving the truck either as an employee of Rajinder Pal Singh or as a person working with him on some assignment on contract or otherwise. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner has denied in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he was involved in the accident, the onus clearly shifted upon the prosecution, but it has miserably failed to establish his guilt. In my considered opinion, when there is no evidence against the petitioner, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellant Court are not sustainable. Crl.Revision Petition No.600 of 1998 -5- .... Accordingly, the instant revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment is reversed, the conviction & sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. August 17,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge