Criminal Revision No.256 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.256 of 2008. Date of Decision : 9.2.2011. Rajinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Union Terriotory, Chandigarh ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent-UT, Chanidgarh. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 21st, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 28th, 2005 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC -- Rs.1000/- RI for 2 months 304-A IPC RI for 6 months -- 2. Prosecution was launched on the statement of Anil Kumar (PW-1) Constable in Haryana Police. According to him on the fateful day--March 29th, 1995 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. he was on duty at the main gate of MLA Flats Haryana, Sector 3, Chandigarh. At about 9.35/9.45 p.m., two Police officials, namely, Lakhwinder Singh and Partap Singh came on a scooter from the side of Sector 3, Chandigarh. When they reached near Rickshaw Stand, a car bearing registration No. CH-01-C-1773 driven by the petitioner another constable of Punjab Police came from opposite direction and hit the Criminal Revision No.256 of 2008 2 scooterists. Lakhwinder Singh and Partap Singh received injuries. Both of them were brought to Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. Partap Singh succumbed to the injuries on the same day. On the statement of Anil Kumar (Exhibit PA), First Information Report (Exhibit PW-4/B) was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh. 3. On completion of investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial. 4. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 IPC. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined Anil Kumar (PW-1), Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW-2), Kulwant Singh (PW-3), Harbhajan Singh (PW-4), Tejinder Singh (PW-5) and Gamdoor Singh (PW-6). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of Courts below on the ground that Lakhwinder Singh- injured and the Investigating Officer have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer particularly when the factum of accident has been denied by the petitioner is fatal. Reliance in this regard has been placed on State of Punjab vs. Gurdip Singh 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 858 wherein, this Court held that when Investigating Officer is not examined and the accused did not admit the accident, non-examination of Investigating Officer assumes great importance. 7. No satisfactory explanation has been put forth by the counsel representing Union Territory as to why injured and the Investigating Officer were not examined. In the absence of their evidence, this Court is left only with the statement of Anil Kumar (PW-1) who deposed that two police officials, who were not known to him, were going on the scooter. The offending car came from the opposite direction and the accident took place. He was not known to the driver of the car. He also deposed that he did not go to the spot because he was on duty at that time and was not supposed to leave the place where he was deputed. He also made it clear in his Criminal Revision No.256 of 2008 3 evidence that he could not recognize the persons sitting in the offending car. He further deposed that he came to know about the accident after it had taken place. 8. From the above quoted evidence of Anil Kumar (PW-1) the so-called eye witness, it is not possible to hold that accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the petitioner or that he was on the steering wheel of the offending car at the time of accident. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, 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. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 9.2.2011 SN