Criminal Revision No.2352 of 2005. 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2352 of 2005. Date of Decision : 28.03.2011. Pawan Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.K.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated November 29th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, whereby he partly accepted the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 12th, 2002 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. The Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of accused-petitioner as under: - Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 3 months Rs.200/- RI for 1 month 337 IPC RI for 3 months Rs.200/- RI for 1 month 304-A IPC RI for 1 year Rs.500/- RI for 3 months 2. The facts : On July 26th, 1997, at about 6.30 AM, Kuldip Singh (since deceased) was on his bicycle on the turning of village Rangilpur. Joginder Singh (PW-2) was present at the grocery shop of his village Rangilpur. A tanker bearing registration No. GJ-6V- 7385 (for short, “the tanker”) driven by Jagroop Singh (PW-6) came from the side of Chandigarh to go towards village Mianpur. Offending four wheeler, that is, Tempo bearing registration No. HR37-3638 Criminal Revision No.2352 of 2005. 2 .. (“Tempo”) driven by Pawan Kumar – petitioner came from behind at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, firstly struck against the right side of the truck and then ran over Kuldip Singh. who died on the spot. The Tempo also hit Joginder Singh, who received injuries. Police reached the spot. On the statement (Exhibit P6/A) of Jagroop Singh (PW-6), First Information Report No. 81 dated July 26th, 1997 was recorded under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC in Police Station – Sadar Ropar against Pawan Kumar – petitioner. Investigator reached the spot. Scene of occurrence was got photographed. The rough site plan (Exhibit D1) was prepared. 3. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charge sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, relied primarily on the evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Jagroop Singh-complainant (PW-6). The accused when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he had been implicated falsely. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Jagroop Singh (PW-6) mainly on the ground that the same is contrary to the site plan (Exhibit D1), which was prepared by the Investigator on the spot. If the site plan is gone through thoroughly, the statements of both the aforesaid witnesses are without credence and deserve rejection. 6. A perusal of the site plan shows that the accident took place at T-Point of village Rangilpur and the tanker has been shown to be parked there, whereas, the Tempo was at point B and the dead body was also shown lying near it. In case, the Tempo had hit the tanker on its right side, then the question of Tempo being stationed at point B could not arise. Manmohan Singh (PW-3), brother of the deceased, has also stated that the dead body of his brother was lying 10 yards away from the tanker towards Purkhali – Rangilpur side, that is, altogether on different road than the road Criminal Revision No.2352 of 2005. 3 .. where the dead-body had been shown lying in the site plan. Joginder Singh (PW-2) has deposed that Jagroop Singh (PW-6), driver of the tanker, was of his village and his village was situated nearby the spot. It has been also stated by Joginder Singh (PW-2) that tanker was turning towards the Purkhali side, when the accident took place. Manmohan Singh (PW-3) has categorically stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying on Rangilpur – Pukrali road and not towards Ropar side. It shows that accident did not take place where it has been shown to occur, which creates doubt on the veracity of the story of the prosecution. Evidence of Jagroop Singh (PW-6), who was driver of the Tanker, is also not worth credence because possibility cannot be ruled out that accident might have taken place on account of his negligence and to absolve himself from the liability, he shifted the blame on petitioner as an accused for causing the accident. Joginder Singh (PW-2), who was known to Jagroop Singh (PW-6) and was resident of the same village, could hardly afford to be a witness against Jagroop Singh. This being so, on the basis of the evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Jagroop Singh (PW-6), it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is guilty of causing the accident. 6. In view of above, the revision is accepted. As a result thereof, the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by learned Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge, under which, he was convicted. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 28.03.2011 som