Criminal Revision No.1494 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1494 of 2005 Date of Decision : 19.4.2011. Jagdeep Mohan ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision arises from the following facts:- On November 25 th, 1997 at about 10 a.m. Davinder Singh (deceased) was going on his bicycle to Tanda. Jagdeep Mohan-petitioner came from behind on his scooter bearing No. PB08 (Temporary)-D-1382 at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner hit the cycle of the deceased. Both of them fell down and received injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Baldev Singh (PW-1) and Harjinder Singh (PW-2). Both of them were brought to Civil Hospital, Tanda. Davinder Singh (deceased) was referred to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur but was taken to Pasreecha Hospital, Jalandhar where he succumbed to his injuries on September 3 rd, 1997. Dr. Navjot Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tanda (PW-3) medically examined the deceased. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. G.S. Mann, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar (PW-4). He opined that petitioner died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident vide post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PF). On the statement of Baldev Singh, First Information Report (Exhibit P) was registered against the petitioner. 2. On completion of investigation, the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A Criminal Revision No.1494 of 2005 2 IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 3. In support of its case, prosecution examined Baldev Singh (PW-1), Harjinder Singh (PW-2)-both the eye witnesses, Dr. Navjot Singh, (PW-3), Jagdeep Singh (PW-4), Dr. G.S. Mann (PW-4A). 4. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dasuya by judgment dated November 3 rd, 2003 convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- under Section 304-A IPC with default stipulation. 5. The petitioner filed appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur partly accepted the appeal reducing the sentence awarded under section 304-A IPC from two years to one year. 6. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has field the present revision. 7. Counsel heard. 8. In this case, occurrence was witnessed by Baldev Singh (PW-1) and Harjinder Singh (PW-2) as alleged by the prosecution. The occurrence took place on November 25 th, 1997. The deceased and the petitioner injured were brought to Civil Hospital, Tanda. Dr. G.S. Mann informed the Police about their admission. For the first time, Baldev Singh made statement (Exhibit PA) to the Investigator on November 29 th, 1997, that is, after 4 days of the occurrence. On December 4 th, 1997, after 10 days of the occurrence, Harjinder Singh made statement to the Police. There is no explanation put forth by the prosecution as to why there was delay of 4 days in lodging FIR particularly when, per prosecution case, eye witness account was available. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the occurrence was not witnessed by these two witnesses rather they are got up witnesses and were introduced later on. If they Criminal Revision No.1494 of 2005 3 had actually witnessed the occurrence they would have made statements to the Police on the day of accident itself. Their presence has thus become doubtful and their testimony has become unworthy of credence. Of course, accident had taken place between the cyclist and the scooterist but in the absence of eye witness account, it cannot be said that it occurred on account of negligence of the petitioner. The requirements of Section 304-A IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that there was rash or negligent act of accused which was the cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash, or negligent act of the accused. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, the revision is accepted. The judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge, under which, he was convicted. The bail-bonds and surety bonds stand discharge. 19.4.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE