IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1390 of 2001 Date of Decision: February 04, 2009 Vijay Kumar ...........Petitioner Versus State (UT Chandigarh) ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Vijay Kumar was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 22.3.1997. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Chandigarh vide judgment dated 7.9.2001 Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court in Crl. Revision No. 1390 of 2001 -2- paras 2 to 5 of its judgment, is as under:- “A matrix of the facts culminating to the filing of the present appeal is as under:- On 26.8.1992 an accident took place on the road inter-secting Sectors 18-19. On receipt of information, Assistant Sub Inspector Pargat Singh along with his official companions reached at the site of accident, but no eye witness was available at that time. Leaving Constable No. 11772 Rajinder Kumar at the spot, Assistant Sub Inspector Pargat Singh along with Constable Kartar Chand went to PGI, Chandigarh where he received information that injured Mohinder Singh was brought dead to the hospital. There he met Jasbir Singh a Mechanic working in the department of Public Health, Punjab and was an eye witness of the accident. 3. Statement of Jasbir Singh was recorded in which he stated that Mohinder Singh deceased was also working as Mechanic in his department. On that day at about 8.30 a.m. while he was on his way on a Moped to his office situated in Punjab Bhawan, Sector 3, Chandigarh. Mohinder Singh who was also going to his office on his scooter bearing No. CHP-8329 was about 20-25 feet ahead of him. When he was about 200 yards short of the light point of sectors 18-19, a scooter bearing No. CH-01-B-2769 which was going ahead of him, was suddenly turned by the scooterist towards Sector 19-D, Chandigarh, as a result of which the scooter of Mohinder Singh first struck into that scooter and then hit into a maruti car bearing No. PCH-1116. He fell down on the road alongwith his scooter and became unconscious. The scooterist, Crl. Revision No. 1390 of 2001 -3- who had suddenly turned his scooter also fell down on the road. His name was later on, known to be Vijay Kumar son of Phool Chand resident of House No. 3324 Sector 21-D, Chandgiarh. The name of car driver was said to be Raj Pal Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of House No. 5661, Sector 8 Chandigarh. 4. The injured was taken to the hospital by Raj Pal Singh and Vijay Kumar in the same car. The complainant stated that he went to his office and also to the house of Mohinder Singh to inform about the accident. Thereafter, he came to PGI and came to know that Mohinder Singh had succumbed to his injuries. In the end the complainant stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist who was driving scooter No. CH-01-B-2769 and had suddenly taken a turn without any indication or signal. 5. On the basis of statement of the complainant a case under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. An application was made to the Duty Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for conducting the medicolegal examination of injured Vijay Kumar. The rough site plan of the place of accident was prepared. The dead body was got post mortemed. The vehicles involved in the accident were taken into police possession and got mechanically examined. Registration Certifcate of Scooter number CH-01-B-2769 was also taken into police possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused Vijay Kumar was arrested and after completion of Crl. Revision No. 1390 of 2001 -4- necessary formalities the accused was sent up to the court for trial.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case . As per the eye witness account, the petitioner had turned towards right side without giving any signal as a result, scooter coming from behind struck against scooter driven by the petitioner. However, as per the site plan, Exhibit PW8/2, prepared by the Investigating Officer, there was no road towards right side. In fact, it was raining on the alleged day of accident and the collusion might have taken due to rain. PW1 Raj Pal Singh has deposed that on 26.8.1992, he was travelling in his car. In the meantime, two scooterist came from the opposite direction. A scooter bearing No. CH-01-B-2769 coming in the front suddenly tried to turn towards the right without giving any signal. As a result of this, scooter bearing No. CHP 8329 coming behind the first scooter struck against it. Thereafter, scooter CHP 8329 struck against the right side of his car and fell in the middle of the road. PW5 Jasmer Singh has corroborated the statement of PW1. A perusal of the site plan Exhibit PW8/2 reveals that there is no road or any turning point near the place of accident. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any turning towards right side, there was no occasion for the petitioner to turn his scooter towards right side, has force. PW5 in his cross-examination deposed that at the time of accident, it was raining. This witness has further deposed in his cross-examination that there was one kacha passage towards right hand side near Crl. Revision No. 1390 of 2001 -5- the place of occurrence. However, the said passage is not depicted in the site plan Exhibit PW8/2. The possibility, in the facts of the present case, that the accident might have occurred as it was raining, cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and order of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. ( Sabina ) Judge February 04, 2009 arya