Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2011 Mangal Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Mangal Singh-petitioner has filed this revision to impugn his conviction recorded for offences under Sections 304-A/ 279/ 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Mehta. Upon conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner was further sentenced to pay a fine of `500/- for his conviction for offence under Section 279 IPC and in default thereof, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Prosecution story as it emerges from the record is that one Balbir Singh had come to his village Khanpur and he along with his father Dilbagh Singh had gone to Dashmesh Auto Spare Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 -2- Parts shop in Village Batala. One Malkiat Singh was engaged with daughter of Dilbagh Singh. Balbir Singh took the scooter of Malikat Singh and left for Village Roparari to deliver some message to his colleague and thereafter, Dilbagh Singh and Surjit Singh went to Batala to purchase some household articles. Balbir Singh came back and met them at Mehta. While he was going on a scooter at about 5.00 P.M., Dilbagh Singh along with Surjit Singh followed him. When they reached at Gurudwara Sachianand Miyan, one jeep bearing No.PB-18-A-5060 came from the side of Baba Bakala at fast speed. This was statedly driven by a dark complexion young man. Jeep came and struck the scooter driven by Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh received multiple injuries and died at the spot. The driver of the jeep ran way. On the basis of statement of Dilbagh Singh, an FIR was registered. Investigation was, accordingly, conducted. Postmortem of the deceased was also conducted. Photographs of scene of incident were also taken. Thereafter, charge was framed against the driver of the jeep with the allegation that he was driving the jeep in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Dilbagh Singh PW-4 was the complainant and Surjit Singh his companion was also the eye witness. After close of the prosecution case, an evidence and incriminating circumstances were put to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he had not caused any accident with his jeep and that he has been falsely implicated. He examined three witnesses in his defence. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that prosecution has fully connected the accused with the Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 -3- offence charged. The petitioner was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the same, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he has filed the present revision petition before this Court. The sole argument advanced before me, which was raised before the appellate Court as well, is that the identity of the petitioner as driver of the jeep had not been fully established and thus, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case was registered on the statement of Dilbagh Singh PW-4. In his statement, Dilbagh Singh had not named the driver of the jeep and had given his description being a dark complexion young man. During the trial, he however, identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending jeep. Similar was the statement of Surjit Singh. The incident took place on 16.10.1995 and the petitioner was taken into custody on 19.10.1995. The defence had, accordingly, pleaded that no identification parade was held to identify the petitioner and his identification for the first time in the Court would not be a satisfactory manner to connect the petitioner with the offence. In this regard, reference is made to M.S. Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 621. Agreed that the witnesses were not in a position to give the name of the driver of the jeep as they had not known him earlier, but it is not disputed before me that the witnesses had thereafter met and seen the petitioner as an accused only during the trial proceedings when they appeared as witnesses and identified him for Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 -4- the first time in the Court. Once the petitioner was linked with this incident, it would have been appropriate to get him identified during the investigation so as to rule out the possibility of his innocence. Jeep belongs to Panchayat Samiti Batala. The petitioner was working as driver of this jeep. The log book along with the registration certificate was taken from the possession of the petitioner. Log book indicated that the vehicle of which the petitioner was a driver and was detailed to go to Jalandhar and had to pass through Mehta. Merely because no suggestion was given by the defence that the jeep was not driven by the petitioner can not mean much and can not be taken against the defence. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in order to succeed the prosecution was required to stand on his own legs and could not look for weaknesses in the defence or to seek support from the infirmities in the defence. It can be said that the petitioner 'May' have been driving the vehicle, but still it was for the prosecution to establish its case to show that it was the petitioner who 'Must' have been driving the jeep to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. In order to succeed on the basis of circumstantial evidence emerging from the log book and the petitioner being driver etc. the prosecution was not only required to show that these circumstances would unerringly point to the petitioner-accused guilt but that there is no scope of his innocence. The evidence linking the petitioner being driver of the jeep may show that the petitioner may have been driving the jeep. But in order to succeed, the prosecution had to prove that the petitioner must have been driving the jeep. Between 'May be true' and 'Must be true', there was lot of distance to Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 -5- traverse which the prosecution was required to do. The evidence, in my view, did not fully link the petitioner being the driver. The petitioner had also denied if the jeep was driven by him met with any accident. Even if it is assumed that the jeep had met with an accident, the prosecution could succeed only if it was able to show that the petitioner was driving at the relevant time. The charge against the petitioner, thus, has not been established beyond the reasonable doubt, benefit of which must accrue to the petitioner. The revision petition, thus, would deserve to be allowed. It is so ordered. Conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is, accordingly, set aside. Revision petition is allowed. October 18, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE Crl. Revision No. 2025 of 2002 -6-