Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 Date of decision: March 30, 2011 Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. JS Rattu, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision has been preferred by Balbir Singh son of Ram Mehar, petitioner/accused, against his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced for those offences by Additional CJM, Panipat, vide judgment dated 12/13.5.2004 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of `1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 304- A IPC. He preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide judgment dated 21.2.2006. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.11.1999, Ram Subhash- Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 2 complainant (PW-5) was coming back from Panipat to Bapoli on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR06E-8149, after meeting his younger brother Sunder Pal. His niece Rajni, deceased, aged 10 years, was sitting on the pillion seat of that motor cycle. At about 2.30 p.m., when they reached in front of Vidya Nand Colony, the accused came driving the truck bearing registration No. HR10-3202 at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently from his back side and dashed the truck in his motor-cycle, as a result of which he was thrown on the katcha portion of the road, whereas the deceased fell down on the pucca portion of the road and received injuries on her head. Even the front tyre of the truck brushed against her head. She died at the spot itself. This accident was witnessed by Parkash Chand and Ashok Kumar (PW-6), who were coming on the back side of the complainant. The complainant approached Kali Ram, ASI (PW-2), who was present at Babail booth in connection with patrolling. At that place he made his statement Ex. PW2/A, in which he narrated the above said facts. The ASI made his endorsement Ex. PW2/B on that statement and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW2/F was recorded against the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Accompanied by the complainant, the ASI came to the place of accident and and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PW2/C with correct marginal notes. The motor-cycle and the registration certificate thereof were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW1/A. The ASI prepared the inquest report Ex. PW2/E in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by Dr. Y.P.Singhmar (PW-3), who found ante-mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 3 death was due to shock and haemmorhage due to those injuries to the vital organs, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the course of the investigation, the accused was arrested. The truck involved in the accident, driving licence of the accused, the photostat copy of the registration certificate and insurance policy of the truck were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW1/B. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, the prosecution examined Balbir Singh, HC (PW-1), Kali Ram, SI (PW-2), Dr. Y.P. Singhmar (PW-3), Sat Narain, HC (PW-4), Ram Subhash, complainant (PW-5), Ashok (PW-6) and Lakshmi Narain (PW-7). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. 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 the motor-cycle of the complainant, while over taking his truck from wrong side, slipped on the sand lying on the spot and the injuries were received in that process. 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 the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements and the conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the basis of Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 4 those contradictory statements. In fact, the complainant tried to over take the truck from the wrong side and in that process slipped on the sand lying on the road and fell down. Had he received any injuries, as alleged by him, he must have got himself medically examined, but he never got himself medically examined at any stage. He further submitted that the truck and the motor-cycle were mechanically tested by Sat Narain (PW-4) and he had not found any dent on any of those vehicles which were involved in the accident. That shows that the truck never struck on the back side of the motor-cycle and the same also makes the story of the prosecution highly improbable. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned State counsel that merely on account of discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be held that they are not worthy of belief or that the conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the basis thereof. In view of the direct evidence produced by the prosecution that the truck struck in the motor-cycle, which resulted in the death of the deceased, no weight could be given to the report of the mechanic which was proved on the record only as a corroborative piece of evidence. It cannot be held, in view of the cogent and convincing evidence produced by the prosecution, that the complainant was trying to over take the truck from wrong side and in the process slipped on account of the sand lying on the road. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. The prosecution story was unfolded in the court by Ram Subhash, complainant (PW-5). He deposed about all the facts which constitute the prosecution case and which establish the guilt of the accused. Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 5 He stated that when he, alongwith his niece Rajni at about 3 p.m. reached near the Vidya Ugarkheri Echki, the accused came driving the truck at a very fast sped and struck in his motor-cycle, as a result of which his niece died at the spot itself and he received injuries. According to him, this accident was witnessed by Parkash Chand and Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was examined as PW-5, who fully supported the version given by the complainant. I do agree with the learned counsel for the accused that there are some contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was stated by the complainant that he was still lying at the spot after the accident, when the police came to that place and recorded his statement, whereas, according to Kali Ram SI (PW-2), this complainant had come to him at Babail booth itself at 2.30 p.m. and he accompanied him to the spot at 3 p.m. As per the prosecution version, the accused had run away from the spot with the truck itself, whereas, according to the complainant, the accused was arrested at the spot and the truck was also lying parked at that place. It is also a fact that in the report Ex. PW4/A, proved by Sat Narain, HC (PW-4) it is mentioned that no dent on the motor-cycle or the truck was found and both those vehicles were in mechanical order. After a minute perusal of the documents proved on the record and the statements of the witnesses, I have come to the conclusion that it is a case where the complainant came out with truthful version before the court and the investigating agency tried to destroy the case. It has come during the statement of Kali Ram, ASI (PW-2) itself that when he reached the spot, the truck was lying parked on the right hand side of the road, whereas the motor-cycle was lying on the left hand side of the road. According to the investigating officer, he had arrested the accused after he Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 6 collected sufficient evidence against him. According to Ram Subhash, complainant (PW-5) also, the truck was found at the spot and was taken into possession and the accused was also arrested by the police from the spot itself. The Investigating Officer tried to fabricate the evidence about taking into possession of the truck on 30.11.1999 from Sanjay Chowk, Panipat. When, according to him, this truck was taken in possession, vide memo Ex. PW1/B, then how he stated in his cross-examination that this truck was found lying at the spot itself on 29.11.1999 when he went to that place after recording the statement of the complainant. After the statement Ex. PW2/A of the complainant was recorded, it was written at the end thereof that proceedings be taken. It was only thereafter that one sentence was added by this Investigating Officer that the driver of the truck sped away from the spot with the truck. It was the mischief that had been done by the Investigating Officer in order to help the accused. In these circumstances, a false report Ex. PW4/A having been procured from the above said mechanic, cannot be ruled out. In view of the direct evidence, which has been produced by the prosecution, I am not inclined to place reliance on that report. It appears that all the manipulations were done by the Investigating Officer in order to help the accused. The suggestion put to the above said witnesses that the complainant himself tried to over take the truck from the wrong side of the road and fell down on account of slipping on the sand lying on the road, was duly denied by them. No such facts could be elicited during their cross-examination, nor any evidence was produced by the accused to make that stand probable. It cannot be held that the findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court are perverse or illegal or the same are based on mis-reading of evidence. There is no Crl. Revision No. 535 of 2006 7 ground for upsetting the well reasoned conviction recorded by those courts. There is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Accused be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. March 30, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE