Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 15, 2011 Balwinder Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Karanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. P.S.Paul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by Balwinder Singh, petitioner-accused, against the judgment dated 16.7.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 14.9.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, convicting him for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentencing him as under:- Sr. No. Offence under Section Sentence imposed fine 1 304-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year ` 1000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month 2 279 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months ` 500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 -2- was dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that on 16.4.1997, Sudhir Sud, complainant, PW-2, had started from his factory for Milk Chilling Centre to collect the price of ice supplied to that Centre. When at about 12-30 p.m., he reached at Nanda Filling Station, R.K.Srivastava, In-charge of that Centre, met him at that place. He talked to him and thereafter, that R.K.Shrivastava started on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. CH-01-L 7263 (hereinafter referred to as “the motor cycle”) towards Sirhind. When he reached in the centre of the road, while crossing it, the accused came driving truck No. PB 10 V 9165(hereinafter referred to as “the truck”), from the side of Gobindgarh, at a very fast speed and struck the same in his motor cycle, as a result of which he fell down and received injuries. The accused stopped the truck at some distance and on the enquiry made by the complainant, disclosed his name, parentage and address. In the meanwhile, ambulance of the police came to that place and the injured was removed in the same to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. He succumbed to his injuries on the way and his dead body was kept in the mortuary of that hospital. Written information to that effect was sent to Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib, and on the receipt thereof, Om Parkash, ASI, came to that place and recorded the statement, Ex. PB, of the complainant. After making his endorsement upon the same, he sent that to the police station and the formal FIR was recorded against the accused under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. The ASI prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. Accompanied by the complainant, he went to the place of accident and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. He called Prem Chand, Photographer, to the spot, who took photographs, Exs. P.1 to P.4. Motor Cycle, along with the Registration Certificate thereof, and the driving Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 -3- licence of the deceased, was taken into possession, vide Memo Ex. PC. The truck along with documents thereof, was taken into possession, vide Memo Ex. PD. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Balwinder Singh, PW-5, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to those injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was arrested on 17.4.1997. The motor cycle and the truck were tested by Karam Singh, Mechanic, PW-4, who gave his reports Exs.PW4/B and PW4/A, respectively. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before Chief Judicial Magistrate, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Lahmber Ram Clerk, office of District Transport Officer, PW-1, Sudhir Sud, complainant,PW-2, Prem Chand, Photographer, PW-3, Karam Singh, Mechanic, PW-4 and Dr. Balwinder Singh, PW-5. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that no such accident was caused by him and that he has been falsely implicated. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by counsel for the accused that conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the solitary statement of a witness, especially when he changed his stand during the cross examination by Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 -4- deposing that he had not met the accused after the accident. No test identification parade was held during the investigation and in the absence thereof, no reliance can be placed upon the identification of the accused made in the Court for the first time. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution and on account of his non-examination, the accused has been prejudiced in his defence. In the last, he submitted that in case the conviction of the accused is to be maintained, he be released on probation of good conduct. There is no denial of the fact that the conviction of the accused was recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of Sudhir Sud, complainant, PW-2, and that the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution. It is not the prosecution case that this accident was witnessed by any other person. In these circumstances, there was no opportunity with the prosecution to examine other witness for corroborating the statement of the complainant. There is neither any rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the Court is always to seek for corroboration before convicting the accused on the sole testimony of the eye witness. The only duty cast upon the Court is to scrutinize the statement of that solitary witness with care and caution for coming to the conclusion whether such a witness is trust worthy and reliable. Sudhir Sud, complainant, PW-2, fully supported the prosecution case in the Court. He has stated that when the deceased started on his motor cycle for going to Sirhind and was in the process of taking the turn and reached in the middle of the road, the accused came driving the truck from the wrong side of the road and by driving the same negligently and at fast speed struck the same in the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and received the injuries. In his statement before the police, he categorically stated that after the accident, the accused stopped the truck and Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 -5- disclosed his name, parentage and address. When he entered the witness box, he reiterated that statement. His cross examination was deferred and when the same was recorded after the lapse of two years, it was suggested to him by the accused that the accused had not met him at the spot, as he had immediately taken the injured to the hospital and that suggestion was admitted by him. During the intervening period, the accused had the opportunity to win over that witness. Merely on account of that admission made by him in the cross examination, the statement made by him during examination-in-chief is not washed of the record. The Court is to see cumulative effect of his statement by keeping in view the opportunity with the accused to win over that witness, during the intervening period of two years. If the accused had not told his own name etc., there was no opportunity with the complainant to disclose that fact in his statement, which was made before the police immediately. In such a short span of time, there was no occasion for the complainant to concoct a story for involving the accused in the case. The circumstances of the present case are such that no illegality was committed by the trial court and the appellate court, while recording the conviction of the accused on the basis of the statement of the complainant without any corroboration. Counsel for the accused has failed to satisfy this Court as to how the accused has been prejudiced on account of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The accused never challenged the statement of the complainant about the manner and the place where the accident took place. No such fact was to be got clarified from the Investigating Officer. It cannot be held that the findings so recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are perverse or illegal. In such like case where a death had taken place and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion can be shown. I do not find any ground to release the accused on probation. The revision is dismissed Crl. Revision No. 1765 of 2005 -6- accordingly. The petitioner be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, so imposed upon him. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 15, 2011 PARAMJIT