Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2002 Date of Decision: December 24, 2009 Jai Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RS Chahar, Advocate with Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mrs. Naveen Malik, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 5.8.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide which the appeal preferred by petitioner Jai Parkash was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 6.10.1999 convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2002 -2- imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, to further undergo SI for one month and two months respectively, was affirmed. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.3.1996, a police party headed by ASI Jyoti Ram was present at village Daboda Khurd in connection with patrolling duty, when complainant Suresh son of Piare Lal, resident of Daboda Khurd, reached there and got recorded his statement to the effect that on the same date, at about 1.30 p.m., when he was on his way towards his house from Bus Stand and had reached near house of one Azad son of Sarju, suddenly, a Haryana Roadways Bus, bearing registration No.HR-36/6244 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle) coming from Bahadurgarh side, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road and at a high speed, hit Manjit son of Ram Karan, resident of village Daboda Khurd, who was crossing the road at that time. Manjit succumbed to his injuries immediately as front tyre of the vehicle crossed the body of said Manjit. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR in the present case was registered. The inquest report was prepared and investigation proceedings were initiated and post mortem on the dead body was conducted. After completion of investigations, challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented before the Court. The accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 read with Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2002 -3- witnesses in all. One witness, namely, Mehar Singh son of Mir Singh was given up by the State as being unnecessary. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the accused-petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. The present revision was admitted on 12.9.2002 and the sentence of the petitioner was suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Jagbir Singh, PW9, is cousin of the deceased, as such, he is an interested witness. He has further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of HC Vishambar Dayal, PW4, and ASI Jyoti Ram, PW8, as regards the place where the offending vehicle was got mechanically examined. According to ASI Jyoti Ram, PW8, the offending vehicle was got mechanically examined at the Police Station whereas as per HC Vishambar Dayal, PW4, the offending vehicle was mechanically examined on 1.4.1996 at the place of occurrence itself. It is further argued that there is material contradiction as regards the place where the complainant made a statement to the police. As per ASI Jyoti Ram, PW8, the statement of complainant Suresh Kumar, PW1, was got recorded at village Daboda Khurd, whereas, it had come in the testimony of Suresh Kumar, PW1, that he reported the matter at the Police Station. Chander Singh, PW2, also stated that the matter was reported in the Police Station. While pointing out to the other contradictions, the learned counsel has submitted that Suresh Kumar, PW1, has stated that the accused sped away from the spot, whereas, ASI Jyoti Ram had narrated that the accused was arrested on the same date. In the Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2002 -4- statement of HC Vishambar Dayal, PW4, it has come that he did not see the bus hitting the deceased. It is further argued that rashness and negligence is not proved. From the above contradictions in the statements of Suresh Kumar, PW1, and ASI Jyoti Ram, PW8, it is established that PW1 is not an eye witness in the present case. Even as per complaint of Suresh Kumar, PW1, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. There was no identification parade and the accused was identified for the first time in the Court, which is no identification in the eyes of law. Moreover, the occurrence took place at 1.30 a.m. during the night. Learned counsel for the State submits that valuable life has been lost. From the statement of Duty Clerk, Ved Varat, PW7, it is established that the accused-petitioner was a driver of the offending vehicle. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the statement of complainant Suresh Kumar, PW1, it is clear that the accused fled away from the spot after the accident, whereas, as per statement of ASI Jyoti Ram, PW8, the accused was arrested on the same date. The discrepancies as regards the factum whether the offending vehicle was mechanically examined at the Police Station or at the place of occurrence itself and the contradictions regarding the place where statement of the complainant was recorded, makes the case of the prosecution doubtful, because these are vital aspects which are not likely to be erased from memory in such a short span of time. The accused was identified in the Court. Admittedly, the factum of accident is proved. However, there is no sufficient material on record which may conclusively prove that the Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2002 -5- death had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Learned Courts below have observed that if the factum of accident caused by the offending vehicle is admitted, then the contradictions do not create any doubt. But mere admission of accident does not prove rashness and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. In the circumstances, there is no conclusive evidence on record to establish the 'negligence' or 'rashness' in driving the bus on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment/order of the Courts below are not sustainable. The circumstances narrated herein above are not sufficient to prove negligence or rashness on the part of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are set aside. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) December 24, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No