Criminal Revision No.351 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.351 of 1998 Date of Decision:16.07.2009 Harbhajan Singh .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 25.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by Harbhajan Singh accused against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 16.5.1996 vide which the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam convicted and sentenced the aforesaid accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 304-A of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 279 of IPC with a further direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The facts in brief are that on 15.5.1994, Chand Singh resident of Vilalge Mehlan was proceeding towards Village Sajuma. Around 4:00 P.M, by covering a distance of 2 acres, when he reached near the fields of Criminal Revision No.351 of 1998 -2- Sadhs, a scooter being driven by a young man, on the pillion of which an old lady was sitting, crossed him. In the meanwhile, a tempo Swraj Mazda bearing registration No.PB-11E/9924 came from the side of Village Gharachon at a very high speed. The scooterist was moving on his left hand side. The tempo driver hit the scooter on account of which, the head of the scooterist was crushed and the leg of the woman got fractured. The scooter also got broken. The tempo driver stopped the tempo and after seeing the occurrence, he ran away towards Mehlan Chowk. Chand Singh went near the injured and found that they had died at the spot. When he was going to lodge the report with the police, he came across ASI Harbans Singh in the aforesaid Chowk. He made statement before the aforesaid ASI. On its basis, the case was registered. On 1.6.1994, the accused was arrested. The usual formalities were observed. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 304-A/279 of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication as well as innocence. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangur. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has preferred this revision. Criminal Revision No.351 of 1998 -3- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged with great eloquence that the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of petitioner at the spot. His name is not mentioned in the FIR. The alleged occurrence took place at 4:00 P.M in the day light and as alleged, number of persons had gathered at the spot, but none had tried to stop the vehicle. The identification in Court is no identification and that being so, no reliance can be placed upon the identification in the Court. The physical description/ the identifying features of the accused are also not given in the FIR. As such, no reliance can be placed upon the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution failed to establish the place of accident. The tempo was coming from Gharachon side towards Sunam, whereas the scooter was going from Sunam towards village Charachon. If this was the situation, the left sides of both the vehicles could not be damaged, but this fact has not been appreciated by both the Courts below. This apart, the statements of the prosecution witnesses are bristle with material discrepancies, which knock, down the prosecution case like a house of cards. As against this, the learned State Counsel maintained that ocular account fully establishes the identity of the petitioner. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. This case was registered at the instance of Chand Singh PW2 who in his cross-examination has testified that “I was standing in the Mehlan Chowk. The persons going on tractor came over there in the Mehlan Chowk and they told me that the accident has taken place.” In his Criminal Revision No.351 of 1998 -4- examination-in- chief, he went on to say that the scooter was going ahead of him at a distance of about 10 to 12 karams and that the tempo was being driven negligently at a fast speed.” On evaluating his examination-in-chief, he had witnessed the accident but his afore-extracted cross-examination demolishes his examination-in-chief. He has stated in candid terms that when he was standing in Mehlan Chowk, he was informed by certain persons on tractor about the accident having taken place. This evidence negates his presence at the time of accident. It is in his further cross- examination that “the boys of Village Saalarth had told him that the persons who were moving on the scooter have died and that when he (Chand Singh) came at the spot, the accident had already occurred.” This further belies of his having witnessed the accident. To put it differently, his examination-in- chief is discredited by these facts. It is in his further cross-examination that “When I reached at the spot, there was none.” It is in his further cross- examination that “he regretted his inability to disclose the number of tempo.” Thus, it would be quite risky to rely upon his statement. Coming to the statement of Hardial Singh PW3, he went on to say in his cross- examination that “I was returning from Sunam and was going to my village, when I came to know about the accident.” Had the accident been seen by this witness, he would have not stated like this that he learnt about the accident, when he was proceeding to his village. The name of this witness does not figure in the FIR. To me, it appears that he also been introduced in the story. To epitomise, firstly, the accused is not named in the FIR and he was arrested after about 16 days of the occurrence. Secondly, the name of Hardial Singh PW3 does not find place in the FIR though he has claimed Criminal Revision No.351 of 1998 -5- that the accident was witnessed by him. Thirdly, his name also does not figure in the inquest report. Fourthly, as is borne out from the evidence of PW2 Chand Singh, the accident was not noticed by him. Fifthly, there is no other eye witness. Harking back to the facts of the instant case, the FIR is absolutely cryptic about the identifying features of the accused- petitioner and furthermore the test identification parade, though it was to be a corroborative piece of evidence, was not got arranged. The presence of Chand Singh or Hardial Singh PW is not established on the place at the time of accident, thus, it is very difficult to say that the accused- petitioner is the same person who had caused the accident. In view of the infirmities enumerated above, this petition is accepted, setting aside the judgments recorded by both the Courts below. The accused- petitioner is hereby acquitted of the charged offence. July 16, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE