IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2003 Date of Decision : August 10, 2010 Bira Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for having rashly and negligently driven tractor No. PBI-451 on 8.11.1995 at about 8.30 p.m. so as to endanger human life and thereby caused the death of Doonger Singh and Gurnam Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2001, the trial Court convicted him for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The fine imposed was duly paid. Crl. Revision No. 161 of 2003 -2- Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the appellate Court on 7.1.2003 and he was taken into custody to undergo the imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed the present revision in which he was granted bail on 24.1.2003. In his statement made before ASI Swaran Singh on 9.11.1995, complainant Gamdoor Singh mentioned that his brother Doonger Singh used to sell milk at Mandi Rampura. On 8.11.1995 at about 6/7 p.m., Doonger Singh, as usual, went to Mandi Rampura with milk whereas the complainant and his wife Sarabjit Kaur also went there to get some medicine. At about 8.30 p.m., when they reached at the bridge of canal minor in the area of Gill Kalan, an Eicher tractor No.PBI-451 of light blue colour, driven by Bira Singh petitioner, overtook them. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. One Gurnam Singh was sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor. When the complainant and his wife reached half a kilometre ahead of the bridge, Doonger Singh while driving the motor-cycle also crossed them. When Doonger Singh covered a distance of about one killa, he gave light so as to overtake the tractor. The petitioner allowed him to pass but when Doonger Singh was in the process of overtaking, the petitioner dashed his tractor against the motor-cycle of Doonger Singh. As a result of the same, Doonger Singh, fell down on the canal embankment. The petitioner fled from the spot on the tractor. When the tractor had Crl. Revision No. 161 of 2003 -3- covered a distance of two killas, it over-turned. The complainant and his wife first attended to his brother Doonger Singh, who had received a number of injuries but due to excessive bleeding, he died at the spot. At a little distance, they saw Gurnam Singh also lying dead under the tractor and the petitioner had run away from the spot. On reaching home, the petitioner sent his nephew Teja Singh son of Kaur Singh to guard the dead body of Doonger Singh and gave information to Jagdev Singh, Sarpanch and Pyara Singh Panch, residents of Burj Manshahian but due to non-arrangement of transport, information could not be given to the police in time. In the morning, the complainant alongwith Jagdev Singh left for the Police Station but on the way, he met ASI Swaran Singh and got recorded his statement. After sending the statement to Police Station Rampura where, on its basis, FIR No. 68 dated 9.11.1995 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, ASI Swaran Singh reached the place of accident and prepared inquests and rough site plan. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the petitioner in the Court. The trial Court charged the petitioner for the aforementioned offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined Dr. Krishan Gopal as PW1, Crl. Revision No. 161 of 2003 -4- Dr. Bhagwan Dass as PW2, HC Darshan Singh as PW3, Jagdev Singh as PW4, Pawan Kumar as PW5, ASI Swaran Singh as PW6, Gamdoor Singh as PW7 and Sarabjit Kaur as PW8. The plea of the petitioner, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was of denial. However, no evidence was led in defence. Both the Courts below believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. The occurrence in question had taken place on 8.11.1995 at about 8.30 P.M. It being the month of November, there would hardly have any day light at that time which would have enabled PW7 Gamdoor Singh and PW8 Sarabjit Kaur to identify the petitioner as the one driving the tractor, more so, when such tractor had come from behind and overtook them who were going on a bicycle. There is no evidence on the file that any artificial light, like street light or an electric bulb affixed on a house nearby, was available in which the two prosecution witnesses could have identified the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was named only on account of the fact that the offending tractor stood registered in his name. Late registration of FIR is another indication of the fact that during night time, the prosecution could not gather information as to who was the owner of the tractor. Only during the next day the prosecution appears to have learnt about the petitioner being the owner of the tractor and, accordingly, he was Crl. Revision No. 161 of 2003 -5- named as accused. The identity of the petitioner at the time of occurrence, thus, remains doubtful. As regards the delay in lodging of the FIR, it may be noticed that after the accident had taken place on 8.11.1995 at about 8.30 P.M. complainant Gamdoor Singh had made statement Ex.P8 before ASI Swaran Singh on 9.11.1995 at 7.45 A.M. On its basis FIR Ex.P10 was registered at Police Station Rampura at 8.05 A.M. The special report was received by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul on the same day at 12.20 P.M. The dead body of Doonger Singh was subjected to autopsy on 9.11.1995 at 12.30 P.M. while that of Gurnam Singh at 1.15 P.M. The explanation furnished by PW7 Gamdoor Singh regarding the delay was that after the occurrence he alongwith his wife went to the village and informed his nephew Teja Singh who was sent to the place where dead body of Doonger Singh was lying. He then informed the members of the Gram Panchayat and requested them to accompany him for informing the police but they told him that as it was an odd time they would go to the Police Station only in the morning. The explanation furnished by PW7 Gamdoor Singh, had not been corroborated by PW4 Jagdev Singh, Sarpanch of the village of the complainant. He stated that Gamdoor Singh had come and informed him about the occurrence on 9.11.1995 at about 10.00 P.M. (It may be mentioned here that the occurrence had taken place on 8.11.1995.) Though, in examination-in-chief he stated that the reason for not going Crl. Revision No. 161 of 2003 -6- to the police during the night was that it was very late yet in cross- examination he deposed that there was no mode of transportation available during the night and it was also not proper to go at that time. He also stated that Gamdoor Singh had come during the night on a cycle and while leaving for the Police Station, they had used cycles. Apparently, there was a long delay of about 12 hours in the lodging of the FIR which had been used by the prosecution to falsely name the petitioner as accused. Even the presence of PW7 Gamdoor Singh and PW8 Sarabjit Kaur at the time of occurrence was purely by chance. The deceased had left the village at about 5.00/6.00 P.M. for distributing milk at Rampura Phul and was returning home at the time of the occurrence. On the other hand, Gamdoor Singh had left during the evening with his wife Sarabjit Kaur on a cycle for getting medicine for her. Afterwards, they were returning and reached the bridge of canal minor when the tractor said to be driven by the petitioner overtook them. Both Gamdoor Singh and Sarabjit Kaur had covered half a kilometer when deceased Doonger Singh while driving the motor-cycle also overtook them. When Doonger Singh tried to overtake the offending tractor the accident had taken place. In such a short time, both Gamdoor Singh and Sarabjit Kaur would not have reached the place where the occurrence had taken place as they were on a cycle only. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon their testimonies to hold that the Crl. Revision No. 161 of 2003 -7- accident had been caused by the petitioner while driving his tractor in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the above, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Resultantly, the revision is accepted, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 10, 2010 JUDGE satish