Criminal Revision No.720 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.720 of 2005 Date of Decision 03.12.2010 Ranka Ram ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate, for Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Ranka Ram petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and, ultimately, vide judgment dated 16.02.2004, passed by the trial Court at Hoshiarpur, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC. In nutshell, the facts are that on 10.07.1999 at about 10:30 a.m., Vijay Kumar alongwith his mother Parkash Rani and his sister Aasha Rani (injured) while travelling in a bus bearing registration No.PB-12-9339, was going from Pathankot to Jalandhar. When the said bus reached near the sub canal, a little bit ahead of Bhangala in the area of village New Bhangala, then the petitioner while driving the said bus rashly and negligently struck Criminal Revision No.720 of 2005 2 against a truck, as a result of which the right arm of Asha Rani was chopped off. She was shifted to Civil Hospital, Mukerian. On the aforesaid statement, made by Vijay Kumar, a case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, the petitioner was challaned. He was charged under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Savinder Singh (PW1), ASI Sukhjinder Singh (PW2), Vijay Kumar (PW3), Asha Rani (PW4), Sub Inspector Dilbag Singh (PW5) and Surinder Singh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. No evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. The appeal, preferred by him was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the conduct of Vijay Kumar (PW3) as well as Asha Rani (PW4) is not above board. Though the arm of Asha Rani (PW4) was chopped off yet she as well as Vijay Kumar (PW3) have not explained as to how she came to suffer an injury due to which her arm was chopped off. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that he was negligent but the witnesses have not explained as to how he was negligent. To the contrary, while taking me through the entire evidence, Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has strengthened the impugned judgment and sought this Court to uphold the conviction. Having heard the rival contentions, there is no dispute with the Criminal Revision No.720 of 2005 3 proposition that the re-appreciation of evidence at this revisional stage is not permissible yet the Court could delve deep into the evidence if the evidence has been misread or mis-appreciated. Having examined the evidence, the judgment appears to be perverse as it has been passed while ignoring the material evidence, which if read, does not prove the rashness and negligence of the petitioner. Admittedly, Vijay Kumar (PW3) and Asha Rani (PW4), who were travelling in the offending bus, has nowhere stated if the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. They have stated only one thing that the accident took place as a result of fault on the part of the petitioner but as to what was the fault, has not been explained by them. Though, Vijay Kumar (PW3) has stated that the side of the bus struck against the truck whereas Asha Rani (PW4) even does not know as to with which article/vehicle, the bus touched, which resulted into chopping off her arm. The arm could be chopped off only if Asha Rani had taken out her arm outside the window. Asha Rani (PW4) states that she had not taken her arm outside the window. Since none of the passengers had suffered any injury including those who were sitting by the side of the window where Asha Rani was sitting, therefore, she could not suffer damage to the arm if it was inside the window. Actually, it appears that Asha Rani (PW4) has intentionally concealed the true facts as she knew that if she states that she had taken out the arm outside the window then she would be again at fault as no passenger could take out any part of the body out of the window in the moving vehicle. If Asha Rani had not taken out the arm outside the window then there was no reason that her arm could be chopped off particularly when none of the other similarly situated passengers sitting inside the bus had suffered any injury. The proof of rashness and Criminal Revision No.720 of 2005 4 negligence is the condition precedent to prove the offence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Mere fact that the arm of the injured was chopped off is not sufficient to prove the negligence unless any of the witnesses describe as to how and in what manner the driver was rash or negligent. None of the co-passenger has come forward to say that the petitioner was rash or negligent. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has misappreciated the evidence and not scrutinized the same properly, as such the judgment has been rendered as perverse, warranting interference by this Court. For the aforesaid discussions, I hereby accept the petition; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited, be refunded. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 03.12.2010 mamta-II