Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 Date of Decision:-January 13,2010 Zora Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.P.S.Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajaib Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. Impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.1997 of the trial Court and judgment dated 14.2.1998 of lower appellate Court, Zora Singh-petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as “petitioner”) has directed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition and emanating from the record, as unfolded during the trial, is that on the fateful day of 12.11.1993, PW6 complainant Balkar Singh alongwith his brother Nachhattar Singh (deceased) and PW8 Pal Singh were going on their respective bicycles to the premises of Pawan Tube, G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgar. As soon as, at about 5 P.M., they reached near the gate of Government Primary School (place of occurrence), in the meantime a bus bearing registration No.PB- 23-2551 (hereinafter to be referred as “the offending bus”) belonging to Amloh Roadways, being driven by the petitioner, came from behind, in a Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 2 rash and negligent manner. The driver could not control and rammed the offending bus into the bicycle of Nachhattar Singh. The left tyre of the bus passed over his bicycle, as a result of which, he felled on the ground and sustained multiple grievous injuries. It was claimed that after the accident, the petitioner alighted from the bus, Sukhwinder Singh, Conductor of the offending bus, helped PW6 and PW8 in removing the injured Nachhattar Singh to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in view of his serious condition. But on the way, Nachhattar Singh succumbed to his injuries. His dead body was then brought back to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. The doctor sent written information (Ex.PA) informing the police about the arrival of the injured in the hospital. Thereafter vide information (Ex.PB), doctor intimated the police with regard to the arrival of his dead body in the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. 3. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on the next day, i.e. on 13.11.1993, police party headed by ASI Gurdial Singh (PW7) went to the place of accident and recorded the statement (Ex.PW6/A) of Balkar Singh (PW6), which was read over and explained to him and he (PW6) signed the same in token of its correctness. PW7 made his endorsement (Ex.PW7/A) on the statement and sent the same to the Police Station for the registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PW7/B) was recorded by MHC Satpal Singh. Thereafter, PW7 prepared the inquest report (Ex.PW5/A) of the dead body of Nachhattar Singh. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner while driving the offending bus and caused the death of Nachhattar Singh, not amounting to culpable homicide. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PW6/A) of Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 3 the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner vide FIR (Ex.PW7/B), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the commission of crime punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the trial Court. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner examined, PW1 Kuldeep Singh, who snapped the photographs (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10) of the place of occurrence on 13.11.1993 vide negatives Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and handed over to the police. 7. PW2 Dr.Navjiwan Goyal sent the informations (ruqqas-Ex.PA and Ex.PB) to the police. PW3 Dr.Baljit Singh, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Nachhattar Singh vide post-mortem report Ex.PC on 13.11.1993 at about 1.20 P.M. and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the head injury, which could be result of road side vehicular accident. He maintained that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death, PW3 Karam Singh mechanically examined the offending bus and proved his report Ex.PW3/A. PW4 HC Pardeep Singh is a witness of recovery, while PW5 Jarnail Singh identified the dead body of Nachhattar Singh in the mortuary of the hospital. 8. The next to note is the testimony of PW6 complainant Balkar Singh. Instead of reproducing his entire statement in toto and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that he tried to reiterate the initial prosecution version contained in his statement (Ex.PW6/A), which formed the basis of the FIR (Ex.PW7/B). Likewise, another eye witness PW8 Pal Singh Panch has, inter-alia, stated that the accident in question took place due to negligence of the petitioner. Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 4 9. PW7 ASI Gurdial Singh is the Investigating Officer, who attempted to testify his investigation. PW8 Pal Singh Panch, is an eye witness of the accident. Likewise, PW9 SPO Ranjit Singh deposed regarding the part played by him during the investigation. 10. After the close of the prosecution case, the petitioner in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC has stoutly denied the allegations of the prosecution in its entirety and pleaded false implication. However, he did not prefer to lead any evidence in his defence despite opportunity. 11. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months for commission of offence punishable under section 304-A IPC and to undergo RI for a period of three months for commission of offence punishable under section 279 IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.1997. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 12. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 14.2.1998. 13. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and filed the present petition. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, as the impugned judgments of the Courts below cannot legally be maintained, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 15. The cardinal fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence have to be kept in focus while deciding criminal cases. Some of these are Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 5 that the absolute onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused cannot possibly be convicted without any legal substantive evidence as the evidence is essential element in the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations alleged against the accused because criminal proceedings require strict proof of guilt. It is the evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the requirement of criminal justice. Otherwise, in the absence of the same, the courts have no option but to record an order of acquittal howsoever painful the same may be. 16. As is evident from the initial prosecution version that on 12.11.1993 at about 5 P.M. PW6 Balkar Singh, PW8 Pal Singh and Nachhattar Singh (deceased) were going together on their bicycles. As soon as, they reached the place of occurrence, the offending bus came and rammed into bicycle of Nachhattar Singh and caused the accident. Meaning thereby, PW6 Balkar Singh is none else but real brother of the deceased and PW8 Pal Singh is a Panch, who were stated to have witnessed the accident (eye witnesses). Thereafter, Nachhattar Singh was removed in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. Ex.PA is first ruqqa dated 12.11.1993 sent by the concerned Doctor to SHO Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh, wherein it has been mentioned that some unknown injured person was brought to Civil Hospital by Sukhwinder Singh son of Baljeet Singh. Keeping in view the condition of the injured, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but Nachhattar Singh succumbed to his injuries and his dead body was brought back to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. Again, Doctor sent ruqqa (Ex.PB) on the same day to SHO Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, informing him that an unknown person, who was brought by Sukhwinder Singh son of Baljeet Singh, Driver of the offending bus, was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he died and his dead body was kept in mortuary of Civil Hospital Mandi Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 6 Gobindgarh. PW2 Dr.Navjiwan Goyal also so stated and proved ruqqas Ex.PA and Ex.PB. 17. Meaning thereby, neither PW6 nor PW8 (who were the alleged eye witnesses) did not accompany the injured to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh or to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala or had gone to the Police Station to report the matter on the fateful day. If they had actually witnessed the occurrence as projected by the prosecution then the natural conduct of PW6 and PW8 would have been, to accompany his (PW6) real injured brother Nachhattar Singh first to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh and then to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in order to provide him adequate medical help to save his life. Moreover, after his death, they ought to have reported the matter to the police on the same day. If PW6 or PW8 had actually accompanied the deceased to the hospitals, then they would have disclosed the name of injured Nachhattar Singh to the doctors and their names would have been incorporated by the doctors in ruqqas Ex.PA and Ex.PB and the doctors would not have recorded that an unknown injured person was brought to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh by Sukhwinder Singh in ruqqa Ex.PA and the dead body of an unknown person brought by Sukhwinder Singh, Driver of offending bus, was lying in the mortuary of the hospital in subsequent ruqqa Ex.PB. 18. The sequence of events as narrated here-in-above clearly established that neither PW6 nor PW8 witnessed the occurrence. It was Sukhwinder Singh, Driver of the offending bus as depicted in ruqqa Ex.PB, removed the injured to the hospital and that was the reason that name of injured did not surface in ruqqas Ex.PA and Ex.PB. Therefore, taking into consideration the contents of ruqqa Ex.PA and Ex.PB coupled with the conduct of PW6 and PW8 and sequence of events narrated here-in-above, it can safely be held that PW6 and PW8 were not present at the spot and did not witness the occurrence as projected by the prosecution. If their Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 7 presence (evidence) is excluded from the place of occurrence, then there is no other cogent independent evidence on record to prove that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner Zora Singh, particularly when name of driver of offending bus is mentioned as Sukhwinder Singh in ruqqa Ex.PB. 19. Proceeding on this premises, there appears to be an inordinate delay in reporting the matter, which remained unexplained. PW6 and PW8 were stated to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. As discussed above, if they did not accompany the injured to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, then they ought to have reported the matter to the police on the same day. But neither they lodged the report on the same day nor any cogent explanation in this respect is forthcoming on record. The only explanation put forth by them is that after the incident, they went to village to inform their relatives but this explanation is highly improbable and difficult to believe. The first and foremost natural conduct of such persons would have been that first of all, they should have accompanied the injured to the hospital and after his death, they should have gone to the Police Station to lodge the report. It is highly improbable to believe that real brother of PW6 was removed to Civil Hospital in a serious condition by Sukhwinder Singh, who was again referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and he (PW6) instead of accompanying him, went to his village. As per version of PW6, on next day, he went to the place of occurrence where PW7 ASI Gurdial Singh met him and recorded his statement Ex.PW6/A at 7.10 A.M. which forms basis of FIR Ex.PW7/B recorded at 8.15 A.M. on 13.11.1993. There is hardly any explanation as to why PW6 or PW8 did not report the matter to the police on the day of accident. It means, the delay of more than 15 hours in recording the FIR remained unexplained, which casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. 20. Not only that, presence of PW6 and PW8 at the relevant time Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 8 at the spot is doubtful, there is unexplained delay, even the investigation in this case is also tainted. It is not a matter of dispute, rather, proved on record that PW1 Dr.Navjiwan Goyal sent ruqqa Ex.PA to the Police Station with regard to admission of an unknown injured person to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. He was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where he died. After receipt of dead body, PW1 again sent ruqqa Ex.PB. The factum of receipt of ruqqa Ex.PA at 6.30 P.M. on 12.11.1993 was admitted by PW7 ASI Gurdial Singh. He did not prefer to verify the facts immediately after receipt of ruqqa Ex.PA and did not bother to prepare the inquest report or carried out any investigation after receipt of ruqqa Ex.PB on the same day, for the reasons best known to the investigating agency. It leads only to one inference that the investigating agency was not aware as to when, how and in what manner who caused the accident in question. Therefore, the possibility of calling PW6 Balkar Singh, who is none else but real brother of the deceased on 13.11.1993 and recording his statement after due consultation and manipulation in this respect cannot be ruled out, under the present set of circumstances. 21. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that these very legal points were raised but the Courts below have just ignored the vital legal aspects on unsustainable grounds, such as, that Sukhwinder Singh, who took the injured to the hospital and the owner of offending bus, were not examined by the petitioner and that the natural conduct of the eye witnesses would have no bearing on the prosecution version. To me, the courts below did not record any cogent reasons in ignoring the vital indicated legal aspects of the matter. Thus, the courts below have committed grave irregularity and patent illegality in this respect. 22. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and if the presence (evidence) of PW6 and PW8 (eye witnesses) at the relevant time at the place of occurrence is excluded from Criminal Revision No.354 of 1998 9 consideration and taking into consideration the fact of inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the FIR coupled with tainted investigation and totality of the other facts and circumstances emanating from the evidence on record as discussed here-in-above, are put together, then to my mind, irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges framed against the petitioner and he deserves the benefit of reasonable doubt, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 23. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 24. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is accepted, impugned judgments of the Courts below are set aside and having extended the benefit of reasonable doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. All the consequences will follow accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) January 13,2010 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No