Criminal Revision No. 1993 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1993 of 2005 Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 Krishan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir S.Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated October 5th, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, affirming the judgment of conviction dated December 5th, 2000 and order of sentence dated December 6th, 2000 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence U/s Sentence Fine Default 304-A IPC RI for 2 years ` 300/- | 337 IPC SI for 3 months ` 100/- | SI for 2 months 279 IPC SI for 3 months ` 100/- | The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of November 16th and 17th, 1991, Ram Chander (deceased), Krishan – petitioner and Dharampal (CW-2) were travelling in truck bearing No. CHW-5901. Krishan was the driver and Ram Chander (deceased) was conductor on the truck. At about midnight, when they reached 1-1/4 Kms from Rajound turn towards Kaithal, the truck over-turned. Ram Chander came underneath the Criminal Revision No. 1993 of 2005 2 .. truck and died on the spot. Dharam Pal received injuries. It was raining at that time. Dharampal was evacuated to Primary Health Centre, Rajondh. Information was sent by the Medical officer to the Police Station, Rajound. Sumer Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Cheeka (CW-4) reached the spot and recorded the statement of Dharam Pal, on the basis of which, Daily Dairy Report (Exhibit PC) was recorded. Dharampal (CW-2) narrated the occurrence that on account of glare of lights of a truck coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed, Krishan – petitioner took his truck to the berm of the road on his correct left side. On account of rain, the berm of the road had become marshy and the truck overturned. Ram Chander came underneath the truck and died on the spot, whereas, he received injuries. No case was registered against the petitioner because he was not blamed by Dharampal (CW-2) for causing the accident. However, on February 25th, 1992, Maya Devi, widow of the deceased - Ram Chander, filed complaint in the Court of Area Magistrate. 3. Complainant, in support of her case, examined Dharampal (CW-2) and Dalla Ram (CW-3) and Sumer Singh - Investigator (CW-4) besides appearing herself as CW-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgments of the Courts below on the ground that both the Courts did not take into consideration the first version of the occurrence, that is, the statement of Dharampal (CW-2) made by him before Sumer Singh – Investigator. It has been argued that Dalla Ram (CW-3) is a witness, who was later on introduced by the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner. He further contended that Maya Devi – complainant filed the present complaint in order to take compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act which she got as per the award dated December 12th, 1992 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal. 5. The eye-witness account has been rendered by Dharampal (CW-2) and Dalla Ram (CW-3). At the first instance, Criminal Revision No. 1993 of 2005 3 .. Dharampal (CW-2) made statement (Exhibit PC) to Sumer Singh Investigator (CW-4) in which, he stated that the petitioner was not negligent in causing the accident. In Suraj Mal Vs. Statte (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408, it was held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness. Presence of Dalla Ram (CW-3), alleged eye-witness, can not be believed because in case he was travelling in the said truck, his name would have appeared in the statement (Exhibit PC) of Dharampal (CW-2) proved by Sumer Singh – Investigator. In view of this, both these witnesses appear to be got up witnesses, particularly when Maya Devi (CW-1) – complainant has stated that she filed the complaint against the petitioner to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which she filed and got the compensation. Not only that, her counsel Mr. Raj Kaushik has also placed on record affidavit (Annexure P/1) that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner. 6. In view of above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable and are hereby set-aside. Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Amount of fine imposed, be refunded to the petitioner, if it was deposited by him. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.03.2011 som