Criminal Revision No.1200 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1200 of 2005 Date of Decision: 15.03.2011. Tinderpal Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the respondent-UT Chandigarh. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) By judgment dated May 8th, 2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. He preferred an appeal. Vide judgment dated July 1st, 2005, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh partly accepted the appeal and reduced the sentence under Section 304-A IPC from two years to nine months and acquitted him under Section 279 IPC. Hence, the present revision. 2. On June 28th, 1996 at about 11.40 a.m., Amit, aged 11 years, was pedalling his bicycle in the market of Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. The petitioner was on his scooter bearing No. CH-01-J- 5446. He struck against the bicycle of Amit. Amit fell down and received injuries. His mother Usha Singla (PW-1) eye-witness-author of First information report was following him from a distance of 25-30 feet. Amit was brought to Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh by Usha Singla and the petitioner in a car of a passer-by. From there, he was referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh where he was declared brought Criminal Revision No.1200 of 2005 2 dead. On the statement of Usha Singla (Exhibit PA), First Information Report (Exhibit PA/3) was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sector -19, Chandigarh. 3. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for the trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Usha Singla (PW-1), Nafe Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector-Investigator (PW-2), Dr. J.P. Chauhan who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased (PW-3), Kanya Lal (PW-4) who inspected the scooter mechanically and submitted his report (Exhibit PW-4/A), Rajesh Sood (PW-5) Clerk, Registration Authority Chandigarh who proved that petitioner was the owner of the offending scooter, Inderpal Singh, Head Constable (PW-6) formal witness and Sushil Kumar, Junior Assistant Registration and Licencing Authority, Chandigarh (PW-7 wrongly mentioned as PW-6) who proved that petitioner is registered as owner in the registration certificate. 5. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity and pleaded that accident did not occur on account of his negligence rather it took place on account of negligence of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a reading of statement of Usha Singla (PW-1) the only eye- witness of the occurrence would go to show that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of accident, the petitioner was rash or negligent in any manner and as such both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. 7. Indeed, the accident took place in the market of Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. Accident has not been denied rather petitioner along with Usha Singla had taken the child to the hospital for treatment. In her examination-in-chief, she has described the occurrence as stated above. However, in the cross-examination, she has categorically stated that she witnessed the petitioner when he struck against the bicycle of his son and not earlier. From this part of the statement, it is clear that she did not watch the petitioner driving Criminal Revision No.1200 of 2005 3 scooter at a fast speed and in rash or negligent manner. She saw the petitioner when his scooter struck against the cyclist. The requirements of Section 304-A IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that there was rash or negligent act of accused which was the cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the accused which is lacking in the present case. 8. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, the revision is accepted and the orders under challenge are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.03.2011 SN