Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision:- 23.2.2011 Ranjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. P.P.S.Duggall, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused, Ranjit singh, has preferred this revision against the judgment dated 2.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 8.7.2002 passed by JMIC, Jalandhar convicting him for the offence under Section 279 and 304 A IPC and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of `.500/- under Section 304A, was dismissed. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Gian Singh-deceased brother of Kamal Singh-complainant PW1 was working as a sales man in the liquor vender shop situated in Adda Partap Pura. On 19.6.2000 at about 11 p.m., he was going to his village on his scooter bearing registration No. PB-08-1242 and was being followed by the complainant PW2 and Balbir Singh PW3, who were coming on the other scooter. When he had gone to a distance of about one furlong near Satnam Memorial Hospital Khambra, Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) -2- accused came driving truck No.PB-03-2106, from the opposite side at a very high speed and by taking the truck on the wrong side of the road struck the same in his scooter as a result of which he fell down and the right side rear wheel of the truck passed over his abdomen and legs and he died at the spot. The truck was chased by the complainant and the Balbir Singh and they were able to stop the same at some distance. The name of the accused was found to be Ranjit Singh. After leaving the dead body by the side of the road, the complainant went to his village to give the information whereas Balbir Singh went to the owner of the liquor vendor. On 20.6.2000, the complainant made his statement Ex.PA before Amrik Singh ASI PW7 about this accident. The ASI recorded his police proceedings Ex. PA/1 over the same and sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof formal FIR was registered against the accused. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared a rough site plan Ex.PB with correct marginal records. He prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. T.L.Chopra, PW6, who found ante mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, which were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary manner. The truck and the scooter involved in the accident were taken into possession vide different recovery memos. Those were mechanically tested by Desu Dass Constable PW1, who gave his report Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B. In the course of investigation the accused was arrested and after completion thereof the challan was put in before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, who charged the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) -3- 304 A IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Desu Dass PW1, Kamal Singh complainant PW2, Balbir Singh PW3, Constable Vijay Kumar PW4, Jaswant Singh PW5, Dr. T.L.Chopra PW6, ASI Amrik Singh PW7 and Gurbachan Singh PW8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial Court 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 false implication. He stated that he never caused any such accident. He was granted opportunity to lead defence evidence, but he did not examine any witness in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that according to Kamal Singh,complainant, PW2 and Balbir Singh PW3 they witnessed the accident from 200 yards. According to them, this accident had taken place at 11 pm and it was bound to be pitch dark at that time. It was not possible for them to identify the driver of the truck. No Test Identification Parade was held and they had identified the accused in the Court for the first time. No reliance can be placed upon such identification. In support of that submission he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 822 State of Punjab Vs. Baljraj Singh and 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 720 Satpal Vs. State of Haryana. He further submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR for which no explanation has been offered. From the statements of the alleged eye- Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) -4- witnesses it is very much clear that they were not present at the spot and have been introduced into picture subsequently and the delay has been utilised for falsely implicating the accused and introducing those false witnesses. According to him the conviction of the accused could have been recorded on the basis of the statements of those eye-witnesses. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that it cannot be said that there is any delay in lodging of the FIR as the matter was reported to the police very next day in the morning. In fact both the eye-witneses had gone to give the information to the relatives and the master of the deceased, which was natural act on their part. No doubt the accident took place during night, but both the eye-witnesses were in a position to identify the accused in the Court as they had chased the truck and had over-powered the accused. In these circumstances, the identification made by them in the Court for the first time is to be relied upon. There is no ground for setting aside the well reasoned conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. As per the prosecution version the accident had taken place on 19.6.2000 at 11.00 p.m. The same was reported to the police on 20.6.2000 at 9.00 a.m. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for that delay. The law aims at the prompt lodging of the FIR so as to rule out the possibility of any false implication of the accused and the introduction of the made up witnesses. Kamal Singh-complainant was not stranger to the deceased, but was his real brother. According to him he had gone to his village to give the information. It was not a natural conduct on his part. It cannot be believed that he will just leave the dead body of his own brother Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) -5- unattended through out the night. According to him he was accompanied by Balbir Singh, who could have been left with dead body to guard the same. The conduct of these two witnesses does not inspire confidence. The delay in this case assumes importance. That itself may not be fatal to the prosecution, but certainly it is a circumstance, which requires the Court to scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution with more care and caution. The complainant-Kamal Singh PW2 as well as Balbir Singh PW3, stated during their cross-examination that the accused was not known to them previously and they had seen him in the Court for the first time. According to them after chasing the truck they over-powered the accused. They would have been the last persons to allow him to escape from that place after such an act was committed by him. The story so put forward by them becomes doubtful from the reading of the cross-examination of Balbir Singh PW3. He stated that the truck had stopped after covering some distance and they had seen that the truck lying parked on the Khambra road. That itself negatives the statement made by him during the examination-in- chief that they chased the truck and stopped the same and found that the same was driven by that accused. It was 11.00 pm and it is not the case of the prosecution that there was any artificial light at the spot. During the night it was not possible for these witnesses to note the distinctive featurs of the accused so as to enable them to identify him in the Court. The identification made by them for the first time in the Court is meaningless. In view of this re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence, while exercising the revisional Court jurisdiction, this Court has come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the Crl. Rev. No.2355 of 2005(O&M) -6- appellate Court are perverse and are illegal. The revision petition is accepted accordingly. The conviction and sentence of the accused is set aside. The fine, if already, deposited be refunded to him. Records be returned forthwith. February 23, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge