Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 Date of decision 14.12.2010. Jit Ram ...... Petitioner. versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Hemender Goswami Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karpurthala vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-Jit Ram against the judgment and order dated 14.2.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara was dismissed. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that Amrik Singh complainant made statement to ASI Kewal Singh on 6.2.2006 at about 10.30p.m., that he was coming back from Phagwara on his motorcycle No. PB-08-AL-7023 along with Surinder Pal member Panchayat, who was Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 2 running a tent shop at Rawalpindi. Gopal Ram member Panchayat Bhabiana was also going ahead of him on his motorcycle No.PB-36-D-2074 towards the village. At about 8.00p.m., when they reached near Romi Dhaba, there one tempo bearing registration No.PB-08-AE-8538 was seen coming from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner without giving any dipper and hit against the motorcycle of Gopal Ram Member Panchayat. As a result thereof, Gopal Ram fell down from his motorcycle in the fields and motorcycle was badly damaged. They parked their motorcycle and started taking care of Gopal Ram. The tempo driver also came towards them after stopping his Tempo and disclosed his name as Jit Ram son of Shadi Ram resident of Mahal, P.S.Goraya. The right side of the face of Gopal Ram was badly crushed and he also received many injuries. Gopal Ram died at the spot. Thereafter, after leaving his vehicle there accused Jit Ram fled away. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Jit Ram. On the basis of aforesaid statement, the offence under sections 279, 427, 304-A IPC was made out. Ruka was sent to the Police Station. On the basis of which, formal FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The post mortem examination was also got conducted. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were supplied to him free of costs. On finding a prima facie case under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, the accused was charge sheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 3 Sukhwinder Singh Photographer as PW-1, Amrik Singh as PW-2, Surinder Pal as PW-3, Dr.Kamal Kishore as PW-4, Kulwant Kaur as PW-5, HC Surinder Pal as PW-6 and Amrik Singh Bedi as PW-7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to him to which he pleaded his innocence and false implication. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days under Section 279 IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days under Section 304-A, IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 14.2.2008 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner-accused had preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 8.9.2010 dismissed the appeal. Still feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction recorded by both the Courts below suffers from material irregularities. The investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution. The site plan has not been proved in accordance with law. The accused/petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by not producing the investigating officer. The investigating officer is a material witness. In accidental cases, he goes to the place of accident, maintains the case diary, prepares the site plan and gets the place of accident photographed. The material collected by the investigating officer is helpful to explain each and every action at every stage of investigation. In a case of accident, non- examination of investigating officer cannot lightly be brushed aside. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authorities Baldev Raj son of Fateh Singh resident of Kharhar Alipur, District Hisar vs. The State of Haryana 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 294 and Balwant Singh vs. State of Haryana 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 927. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no test identification parade was conducted. The story of the prosecution that petitioner alighted from the tempo and disclosed his name and thereafter fled away, does not appeal to the reason. The owner of the tempo has not been produced to prove the fact that it was the petitioner, who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that prosecution has produced on file the site plan mark X. The petitioner is stated to be coming from Hoshiarpur side whereas deceased was stated to have going towards Hoshiarpur. So, from Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 5 the perusal of the site plan, it is crystal clear that petitioner was driving the tempo on its correct side i.e. left side whereas deceased has gone to extreme left side. So, the circumstantial evidence disproved the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below regarding guilt of the accused. The eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. They have been cross-examined at length but nothing can be brought on the record to discard the sworn testimony. So, prayer has been made for dismissal of the revision petition. I have considered the submission made by both the besides and have gone through the records of the case. The first and foremost point argued before me is that since the investigating officer has not been examined and on that account the prosecution story is doubtful and reliance on authorities Baldev Raj and Balwant Singhs' case (supra) were placed. It is settled law that each case has to be decided on its own facts. It is also settled position of law that concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below should not be interferred in the revision unless the same are perverse on the face of it. In authority Balwant Singh's case (supra) besides the fact that investigating officer was not examined only complainant was examined whose testimony was not corroborated by any evidence. In that authority, it is held that it depends upon the circumstances of each case whether non- Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 6 examination of investigating officer would be fatal for the prosecution or not. In the present case, the case of the petitioner-accused is that he was not driving the vehicle. However, eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. They have been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file to discard their sworn testimony. On the one hand, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that map has not been proved on the record and on the other hand the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the map, it appears that negligence was that of the accused. These two arguments cut each other. Since the stand of the petitioner is that he was not driving the vehicle, so in these circumstances, the above said argument loses its importance. The authority Baldev Raj's case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case the prosecution witness has himself stated that driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. The facts of that case are that bus struck against the back side of a standing truck with loaded iron. It has also come on the record that truck was parked without any light and iron bars were protruding. So, in these circumstances, this Court observed that non- examination of investigating officer is fatal. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution has been closed by order. The facts of the present case are such which does not prove the fact that petitioner has been prejudiced by non-examination of the investigating officer. So, in these circumstances, the above said arguments are without any substance. The other limb of argument is that no test identification parade Criminal Revision No.2589 of 2010 7 was conducted also not acceptable as similar argument was raised before both the Courts below and were rightly repelled for the reasons recorded by both the Courts below. The petitioner has alighted from the tempo and disclosed his name and thereafter fled away. So, that part of the statement of the eye-witnesses have rightly been believed. The owner of the tempo was not a material witness on the facts of the present case. The driving licence of the accused along with registration certificate of the vehicle tempo have been recovered by the investigating officer. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, that also does not call for any interference. The petitioner has taken the life of a person by his rash and negligent act. So, in these circumstances, the sentence of one year cannot be said to be excessive. No other point has been raised by either side. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 14 , 2010. sv.