IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1511 of 2003 Date of decision: February 22, 2010 Satnam Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 17.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Satnam Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 14.6.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. On 31.5.1995, at about 8.30 p.m Mainpal Singh, complainant (since not supporting the prosecution case) was going on his bicycle to his village from his place of work and when he reached near village Jhinwarheri near the field of Bhagwant Singh, the petitioner while driving his truck rashly and negligently came from the side of Bhadsaon and struck the same in the cyclist going ahead of Mainpal. The petitioner after causing the accident ran away with his truck towards village Umri. The complainant identified the injured as Lakhi Ram of village Bakipur, who had suffered multiple injuries and died at the spot. The case was registered, investigated and challan against the petitioner was presented in the court. Criminal Revision No.1511 of 2003 -2- *** The petitioner was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Mam Chand (PW1), Mainpal complainant (PW2), Naresh Kumar (PW3), Raj Krishan (PW4), Ashok Kumar (PW5), Dr. D.S. Saini (PW6) and ASI Jai Pal (PW7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction and his appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, it is noticed that the complainant Mainpal Singh who was behind the deceased on a separate bicycle did not support the prosecution case. He states that he does not know the petitioner and did not witness if the petitioner had caused the accident. The entire case hinges on the sole testimony of Raj Krishan (PW4) who may have stated that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of the petitioner, yet he has not explained as to how the accident took place and how the petitioner was at fault. The golden thread running through the offence is the rashness and negligence which is sine qua to prove the offence against the accused. Raj Krishan while appearing as PW-4 has not uttered the word if the accused was in any way rash or negligent. As such, in the absence of the proof of the fact that the petitioner truck driver was rash or negligent, he could not be convicted. This witness (Raj Kishan) being occupant of the truck along with the petitioner had every sense of judgment to say that he was driving rashly or negligently and at a high speed, but for the reasons best known to him, he has not uttered a word regarding rashness and negligence of the petitioner. No other eye witness has been examined in order to prove the offence. The trial court was quite casual while placing reliance on the testimony of Raj Krishan (PW4). The judgment passed by both the courts below appear to be based on mis-appreciation of evidence inviting interference by this court. Criminal Revision No.1511 of 2003 -3- *** In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned judgment, acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. February 22, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge