Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 Date of Decision: 2.2.2010 Hamid Khan …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Hamid Khan son of Kumar Khan has filed the present revision petition. He was tried in case FIR No. 79 dated 25.3.1996 registered at Police Station Tauru under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. FIR in the present case was lodged by Jeet Khan. He stated that on the day of occurrence, he along with Kassam was going on motorcycle, whereas his nephew Khushi Mohammad, Israil and Jamil were going on scooter No. HR-26-B-1669 to Bhiwari for effecting marriage proposal of the daughter of complainant. At about 1.30 P.M., one truck bearing registration No. DL-1G-5166 was coming from the side of Bhirwari. The truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a fast speed and without blowing any horn. The truck struck the scooter of Jamil. Since the complainant and Kassam, on motorcycle, were 20 yards ahead of the scooter of Jamil, they were unhurt. Three persons Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 2 Khushi Mohammad, Jamil and Israil suffered injuries due to the accident. Later, the complainant learnt the name of driver as Hamid Khan son of Kumar Khan, resident of village Kumhar Hera, Police Station Hathin, District Faridabad. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot. The complainant took the injured to Primary Health Center, Tauru. Due to accident, Khushi Mohammad, Israil and Jamil suffered injuries. Jamil died in General Hospital, Gurgaon and Israil died on 25.3.1996 in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, on both the counts. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, on both counts. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the statement of accused, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mr. Dutt submit that statement of accused, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is cryptic and all the circumstances have not been put to the accused. Therefore, a grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The question No.1, put to the accused in his statement Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 3 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., mention that it has come in evidence against the accused that Jeet Khan stated in the statement that accused was driving the truck in a negligent manner and it collided with the scooter No. HR-26-B-1669 and Khushi Mohammad, Jamil and Israil were the passengers on the scooter. All the three suffered injuries and the statement of Jeet Khan Ex.PW.4/A was recorded. The accused replied that the same is wrong. Second question put to the accused was regarding the mechanical test of offending truck and the scooter carried by Ram Singh, Head Constable. Both the reports regarding the mechanical examination of the offending truck and the scooter Ex.PW.5/A and Ex. PW.5/B, respectively, were put to the accused. He replied that the same are wrong. Thereafter, next question put to the accused was that Dr. Sanjay Narula, on 26.3.1996 carried the post mortem of Jamil. The accused also replied that the same is wrong. Another question put to the accused was that Dr. P.K. Sharma had conducted post mortem of Israil on 26.3.1996. The accused again replied that the same is wrong. Thereafter, question put to the accused was that Dr. P.K. Sharma had carried medicolegal examination of Khushi Mohammad who had received injuries in the occurrence and his Medicolegal Reports were exhibited as Ex.PW.2/A and Ex.PW.2/B. The Medicolegal Report of Israil Ex.PW.2/D was put to the accused along with Medicolegal Reports of Jamil Ex.PW.2/E and Ex.PW.2/F, the accused again answered that the same are wrong. Thereafter, he was asked as to why the witnesses have deposed against him. The accused replied that they deposed Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 4 falsely. Then the accused was asked that there is a case against him and he replied that it is a false case. Then he was asked if he wanted to give any evidence in defence, the accused replied in affirmative. Mr. Gautam Dutt has severely criticized the method of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Courts have been repeatedly stated that each fact should be formulated as a short question and put to the accused for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is a solemn function and is not empty formality. But each and every statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be discarded unless the accused make out a case that a prejudice has been caused. In the present case, the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., contents of which have been noticed briefly, show that all the material and incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that complainant has improved his version in the Court. Therefore, factum of improvement was to be put to the accused specifically. This is not a fact but an argument. The arguments are not to be put to the accused in a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mr. Gautam Dutt has canvassed before me that in the FIR Jeet Khan has stated that later he learnt the name of the driver as Hamid Khan, whereas in the Court he has specifically stated that he knew the driver and his name as Hamid Khan. This is an argument regarding identity. What is the effect of improvement, is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, to say that in the statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., a question should be specifically Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 5 put to the accused that in the FIR complainant had stated a fact and later in the Court, he had stated another fact, is an argument which cannot be entertained by this Court, as same suffer from inherent fallacy. Counsel for the petitioner, while advancing this argument, has not realized that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is to be used to corroborate or contradict the witness. What is the effect of the same, is an argument which the Court, on the given facts and circumstances, can appreciate in favour or against the accused, depending upon other circumstances. Therefore, the argument that the statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is not in consonance with the mandate of law and a prejudice has been caused to the accused, is to be rejected. In the trial Court, prosecution had examined Jaan Mohammad as PW.1. He had identified the dead body of Jamil Khan and had received the body and gave receipt Ex.PW.1/A. PW.2 Dr.P.K. Sharma, had medicolegally examined Khushi Mohammad and Israil. PW.3 Amar Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector, had recorded formal FIR Ex.PW.3/A. Complainant Jeet Khan, appeared as PW.4. In his examination-in-chief, Jeet Khan stated that accused is present in the Court. He identified him. In examination-in-chief, this witness stated that he knew Hamid Khan before the occurrence. However, this witness, in cross-examination, stated that he is not aware whether he had got recorded this fact in his statement to the police or not. The defence had not dared to confront the witness with his previous statement Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 6 Ex.PW.4/A. Ram Singh, Head Constable, appeared as PW.5. He proved Mechanical Test Reports of the truck and the scooter as Ex.PW.5/A and Ex.PW.5/B, respectively. PW.6 Dr. Sanjay Narula had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jamil. PW.7 Dr. B.Swain had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Israil. As stated earlier, FIR recorded on basis of statement Ex. PW.4/A of complainant PW.4 Jeet Khan cannot be read. Only the portion with which the witness was confronted can be taken into consideration. Therefore, two Courts below were well justified to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW.4 Jeet Khan recorded in the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the two Courts below have committed a patent illegality or irregularity. In these circumstances, no interference is warranted by the revisional Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1996. Petitioner has suffered protracted trial of about 14 years. However, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that in the accident two persons had died and one person was injured. Taking into consideration the protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, the sentence of one year awarded by the trial Court for offence under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC is reduced to eight months. Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2000 7 However, sentence of fine is maintained. Sentence awarded by trial Court under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is upheld. All the sentences shall run concurrent. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 2, 2010 “DK”