Criminal Revision No.376 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.376 of 2001 Date of decision: 07.01.2009 Balwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. K.S.Sandhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- vide judgment and order dated 1.10.1999 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.2.2001 by the Additional Sessions Criminal Revision No.376 of 2001 2 Judge, Patiala. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case as noticed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala in para 2 of its judgment dated 1.10.1999 is reproduced herein below:- “The facts of the prosecution case are that on 7.2.1994. ASI Ram Dayal along with other police officials after receiving a message from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala regarding an accident, went to the Hospital and there Bachittar Singh made a statement to the effect that he was working in the PRTC (Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation). At about 10.30 P.M., he along with Paramjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh was going on his bycycle towards Baradari. His son Charanjit Singh was also going on his bicycle who was 20-25 karams ahead of them. When they reached near Leela Bhawan, a white coloured Gypsy came from No.22 crossing side and hit the bicycle of his son. As a result, he struck against the fountain. This occurrence was witnessed by the police persons on duty at Leela Bhawan. The number of the Gypsy was PB-08-F/2325. The name of the driver was Constable Balwinder Singh No. 7/1313. When they tried to help Charanjit Singh, the Criminal Revision No.376 of 2001 3 driver of the Gypsy ran away from the spot. Thereafter, Charanjit Singh was taken to hospital by him along with Paramjit Singh and Joginder Singh . He was taken to Rajindra Hospital, where he was declared dead. Charanjit Singh was also working in the Home Guard Department. His statement is Ex.PW 1/A which was reduced into writing. ASI Ram Dayal made his endorsement over it and sent the same to the Police Station for the registration of the FIR. On this formal FIR was recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the Court” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below had erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. In fact, both the eye witnesses had failed to identity the petitioner at the spot. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The statements of the eye witnesses were trustworthy. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. So far as SPO Piara Singh (PW-3) is concerned, he in Criminal Revision No.376 of 2001 4 his examination-in-chief deposed that the Gypsy No.PB-08- 2325 was being driven by Balwinder Singh, present in Court. However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not recognise the driver at the spot but came to know about the identity of the driver in the police station on the next day at 6.00 P.M. This witness has also deposed that he came to know about the identity of the deceased from his identity card. Had complainant Bachittar Singh been present at the spot as alleged by him, there was no occasion for SPO Piara Singh (PW-3) to identify the deceased from his identity card in the hospital. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Bachittar Singh-complainant was not present at the spot, thus, has force. Bachittar Singh (PW-1), in his cross-examination, deposed that he could not identify the accused at the spot. He came to know about the accused when he was brought into the Police Station. The possibility that Bachittar Singh (PW-1), who is aged about 65/70 years was following his son on a bicycle also does not appear to be plausible. The accident in question had occurred with an official Gypsy. In these circumstances, it was important for the prosecution to establish that the petitioner was, in fact, posted as a driver with the official Gypsy. The accident in question had occurred at 10.30 P.M. on 7.2.1994. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt is liable to be Criminal Revision No.376 of 2001 5 extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. (SABINA) JUDGE January 07, 2009 anita