Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 05, 2009 Randip Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parduman Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** A.N. JINDAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing the appeal of the accused- petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') against the judgment dated 11.7.1998 convicting or sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years under Section 304-A IPC. The brief resume of the facts is that on 20.12.1990, Balbir Singh reported to the police that he was working as a truck operator at Ladwa and on that day, he had gone to Ladwa Union. He further alleged that his daughter Kuldip Kaur and his niece Kanwarjit Kaur had also gone Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 -2- to the Government High School, Ladwa to take exam and at about 1:45 P.M, when they were coming back to their village on their respective bicycles, he as well as Sher Singh saw them when they were on a scooter. When they reached near Village Bapdi, the petitioner while driving the truck No. HR-9615 rash and negligently came from opposite side and struck against the bicycle of Kanwarjit Kaur and thereafter, in the bicycle of Baru Ram and thereby Kanwarjit Kaur received fatal injuries and later on she died. On the basis of the aforeasid statement, the FIR was recorded against the petitioner. Necessary investigation was conducted which was followed by report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304- A IPC to which he opted to contest in order to substantiate the charges. The prosecution examined Gautam Chand PW1, DR. D.S. Saini PW2, ASI Babu Ram PW3, Dr. R.P. Suri PW4, Vijay Kumar- photographer, PW5, Ved Parkash PW6, Sher Singh PW7, Kuldip Kaur PW8 and Avtar Singh PW9. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied all the allegations and submitted his false implication in the case. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the terms as referred to above. The appellate Court dismissed his appeal. The star witness in the case is the complainant - Balbir Singh, but he has not stuck to his guns. It is not known as to why he was withheld by the prosecution. Now we are left with the testimony of two other witnesses, namely, PW7 Sher Singh and PW8 Kuldip Kaur. On scrutiny of their statements, I find that they have not stood to the test of cross- Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 -3- examination regarding reliability and trustworthiness. Their presence at the spot is doubtful. At the same time, they could not establish if the identity of the accused as well as the fact whether the petitioner was rash or negligent in commission of the crime. Sher Singh while appearing as PW7 has stated that at about 2:00 P.M., Kuldip Kaur, was coming on Ladwa - Karnal road from her school when a truck No.HR-1596 which was coming from Karnal side on a fast speed hit the girl and the girl expired at the spot. Truck had hit on her right side. From the examination of his testimony, it transpires that he does not know as to how many girls were going on and how many girls suffered injuries, he also does not know if Baru Ram or Kanwarjit Kaur suffered injuries, to the contrary, he states that Kuldip Kaur suffered injuries which is not factually correct. He does not narrate as to in what manner, the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He also contradicts the statement of Balbir Singh that he was accompanying Balbir Singh. During the cross-examination, he has made a funny statement which disclosed that when he reached Ladwa, a truck crossed him from Indri side and Balbir Singh had come on the tractor but he does not know the number of the tractor. Similarly, Investigating Officer also states that the accident took place with the tractor. According to him, injury was suffered by Kuldip Kaur and an old man and none else meaning thereby Kanwarjit Kaur was not hit in the accident. The presence of Balbir Singh is highly doubtful. Had he been actually present, then he would have come forward to disclose about the accident. He was none else but the uncle of Kanwarjit Kaur deceased, therefore, he being the best witness, not examined by the prosecution hits the prosecution case at its base. Now coming to the testimony of Kuldip Kaur, she has also Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 -4- made a contradictory statement to PW7. She does not disclose if she had also suffered any injury. She states that the truck had stopped after hitting the eucalyptus tree, which is not the case of the prosecution at all. Kuldip Kaur has again made a statement contradictory to other witnesses. According to Sher Singh PW, the truck had come from the same side from which they were coming and he hit the backside of the truck against Kanwarjit Kaur and Baru Singh whereas Kuldip Kaur states that the truck was coming from Karnal side and they were going towards Karnal side. All this goes to show that prosecution case is doubtful inasmuch as the presence of the witnesses at the spot is suspicious. Since the witnesses were strangers to the petitioner; it is a hit and run case; none of the witnesses has stated that they had identified the petitioner at the spot, therefore, in the absence of test identification parade, in such cases, the identification of the petitioner for the first time in Court is insignificant; the prime element of rashness or negligence which the sine quo for holding the culpability of the accused has not been proved at all and the most material witness has been withheld. The conviction appears to have been recorded on misappropriation of evidence by the trial Court, therefore, interference in the impugned judgment has become inevitable. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charges framed against him. Fine, if any, deposited by the petitioner be refunded. Bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. May 05, 2009 ( A.N. JINDAL ) renu JUDGE