Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2005 Date of Decision 06.12.2010 Sham Lal ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.F.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.07.2005, passed by the First Appellate Court at Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.2003, passed by the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Factual matrix of the case is that on 08.07.1999, complainant Rajesh Kondal (herein referred as 'the complainant') alongwith Rajesh Kumar, both residents of Mukerian, were coming on their scooter towards Talwara Chowk, in connection with their business. Vinod Kumar @ Sonu was also going ahead of them. At about 3:30 p.m., when they reached in front of Kumar Auto Service, a driver, while driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-07-G-2065 rashly and negligently came from behind. The complainant took his scooter aside and had a narrow escape whereas the petitioner struck the truck on the back side of the scooter of Vinod Kumar and killed him. He, after causing the accident, fled away. On the Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2005 2 aforesaid statement of Rajesh Kondal, the case was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined four witnesses in all. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to assail the prosecution version, has alleged that Rajesh Kondal (PW2) and Rajesh Kumar (PW3) though have stated about the accident yet have not identified as to who was the driver of the offending vehicle; the petitioner was not arrested at the spot; no proper test identification parade was got conducted by the Investigating Officer and the identification for the first time in the Court is of no significance. To the contrary, Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has supported the impugned judgment, stating that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove the case against the petitioner. The prime question to be determined in the instant case is with regard to the identity of the petitioner. Though the accident took place on 08.07.1999 at 3:30 p.m. yet both the witnesses have not stated that it was the petitioner who was driving the truck at the relevant time. Both the witnesses were at some distance from the scooter of the deceased and it has further come in their evidence that after causing the accident, the petitioner Criminal Revision No.1698 of 2005 3 stopped the truck at a distance of 10-15 yards. There is no evidence that the petitioner had come down to see the accident. Both the witnesses have stated that they had not seen the driver of the offending truck at the time of accident. Rajesh Kondal (PW2), in examination in chief itself, has stated that he did not know about the name of the driver and he had come to know about his name from the crowd. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the petitioner at the relevant time. Similar is the statement of Rajesh Kumar (PW3), who has also stated that he had not seen the petitioner at the time of accident. At the same time, it would also be significant to observe that no driving licence or document pertaining to his identity was recovered at the spot; truck was also not taken into possession from the spot and no proper identification parade was got conducted. Under these circumstances, the test identification, made by the witnesses for the first time in Court is insignificant and attaches no importance particularly when the witnesses never knew him since earlier. Thus, both the Courts below have erroneously observed that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, as such, the impugned judgment, being against facts and evidence on the record, is rendered as perverse, warranting interference by this Court. For the aforesaid discussions, I hereby accept the present petition; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited, be refunded. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 06.12.2010 mamta-II