CRM-A No. 1003-MA of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A No. 1003-MA of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.12.2010 State of Punjab ...Appellant versus Balbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punajb for the appellant. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that originally a criminal case was registered against the respondent-accused Balbir Singh, vide FIR No. 119 dated 10.10.2004, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana. 2. After completion of the trial, the trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent-accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.01.2010. 3. The State of Punjab (appellant) did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial Court and filed the instant petition for the grant of leave to appeal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned State counsel, having gone through the record, with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in this petition. CRM-A No. 1003-MA of 2010 (O&M) -2- 5. As is evident from the record that the prosecution claimed that on 10.10.2004, PW-1 Constable Gurcharan Singh along with PW-2 Constable Joga Singh was present near Gate No.4 of Punjab Agricultural University. In the meantime, one old person about 60 years of age came from Rajpura Chowk on his moped bearing registration No. PB-10A-8484. One Tractor Trolley came rashly and negligently, which hit the moped. The old person fell down. They took him to the CMC Hospital where he was declared dead. The driver of the Tractor Trolley was stated to have fled away from the spot. Subsequently PW-1 Constable Gurcharan Singh came to know the name of the respondent-accused from some person of the village. 6. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that (i) no independent witness was associated by the police though available at the time of accident, (ii) there are inherent contradictions even in the statement of the police officials and (iii) the name of the respondent-accused was subsequently introduced, vide impugned judgment of acquittal. The operative part of which is as under: - “In the present case PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that there was no number of the tractor and neither on the Trolley. He further stated that he recorded in his statement that the tractor was Mahindra Tractor but when the attention of the witness was drawn to his statement where it is not mentioned. He further stated that two unknown persons were sitting on the Tractor and no one was arrested on the spot and he cannot tell about the description of any person because they were busy with the injured person. He further stated that the accident was seen by many public persons but their name and addresses are with the IO and in front of the spot there is a Loins Club on the one side and Rose garden on the other side and also it is thoroughfare and they did not returned to the spot. The police has not joined any independent witness which casts a doubt on the prosecution story. He further stated that no site plan was made and no member of the deceased person was present there. He further stated that the some known persons of Balbir Singh from his village came to the hospital and met in the CRM-A No. 1003-MA of 2010 (O&M) -3- hospital and told him the name of the accused as Balbir Singh and then he got recorded the name of the accused Balbir Singh in his statement and this story also casts the doubt on the prosecution story as he has stated that he cannot tell the name and address of those persons and he has never met those persons after that and that he cannot identified any of those persons. Moreover the statements of those persons have also not been recorded and are not cited as witnesses by the prosecution.” 7. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has recorded the valid reasons/grounds and rightly acquitted the accused. Learned State Counsel did not point out that how and in what manner, any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such well-articulated judgment, containing the valid reasons/grounds of acquittal, cannot possibly be interfered with in these proceedings, unless the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State Counsel in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the petition for leave to appeal is hereby declined, culminating in the dismissal of the appeal as well, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) December 07, 2010 Judge naresh.k