Criminal Revision No.2383 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2383 of 2003 Date of Decision 06.10.2010 Jaipal ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Jaipal petitioner- accused (herein referred as 'the accused') was prosecuted for causing the death of three persons as well as buffalo and calf on account of his rash and negligent act, consequently, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 304-A and 429 IPC. His appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17.11.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Smt.Santra, a resindent of Jatusana, had come to his son-in-law Munna Pal, a resident of Buwana, in connection with the purchase of buffalo. Munna Pal got purchased the buffalo for her from his village. In the intervening night of 14/15.09.1995, the buffalo with her calf was loaded in a tempo bearing registration No.HNT-1574, which was driven by Ishwar Singh. At about 12:30 a.m, during night, Ishwar Singh started the tampo for Jatusana with the buffalo and the calf. Ram Pyari wife of Jagmal, Santra Criminal Revision No.2383 of 2003 2 and one Parmila sat in the cabin of the tempo whereas Jagmal sat in the body of the tempo and Munna Pal while holding the buffalo with the rope, also sat in the body of the tempo. At about 2:30 a.m., when they were about half kilometer short of DAV Academy, Kanina towards Rewari, then the accused while driving the tanker rashly and negligently and at a high speed, came from the opposite side. Though Ishwar Singh took the tempo on kacha berm of the road yet the accused brought the tanker bearing registration No.HR-46/4577 on the wrong side and struck against the tempo. Resultantly, Jamgal, Ishwar Singh and the buffalo fell down from the tempo and died immediately whereas Ram Pyari, Santra, Munna Pal and Parmila suffered injuries. Later Ram Pyari had also died. Tempo was damaged and the tanker driver succeeded in escaping. On the aforesaid statement of Munna Pal, recorded by ASI Balbir Singh, case was registered. ASI Balbir Singh inspected the spot, conducted the inquest report on the dead body of Ram Pyari, Jagmal Singh and Ishwar Singh. The dead bodies were dispatched to C.H.C., Kanina for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against them. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined Munna Pal (PW1), Jag Ram (PW2), Udami (PW3), Rameshwar (PW4), Rajender (PW5), Ishwar Singh (PW6), Balbir Singh (PW7), Ghisa Ram (PW8), Dr.Mahender Kumar, Veterinary Surgeon (PW8-A), Head Constable Attar Singh (PW9), Constable Lakhmichand (PW10), Santra (PW11) and Dr.Vinay Chaudhary (PW12). After tendering some documents, the prosecution closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied Criminal Revision No.2383 of 2003 3 all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. No evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner-accused has primarily raised the contention with regard to doubtful identity of the accused while taking me through the statement of Munna Pal (PW1). The counsel has urged that though Munna Pal (PW1), in his statement before the police has stated that he was still on the rear side of the tempo but he has improved his statement before the Court while stating that he was sitting on the bonnet of the tempo while he was catching the rope of the buffalo. No doubt, Munna Pal, being the eye-witness to the occurrence, has identified the accused but by this mere statement, made by him that he was sitting on the bonnet, his testimony cannot be ignored. As a matter of fact, he, being the rustic and illiterate villager and unable to know the meaning of bonnet, may have said so. Actually, Munna Pal meant to say that he was sitting on the head portion of the tempo. There was a buffalo and a calf in the tempo, therefore, Munna Pal could not be supposed to stand by the side of the buffalo when it was carried in the tempo. Certainly, he must be sitting on the head of tempo that was the reason that he had witnessed the occurrence. Munna Pal due to his illiteracy could not use the appropriate word and eventually said that he was sitting on the bonnet. He has described the occurrence in all minute details, therefore, his presence could not be doubted. Munna Pal has categorically stated that he had talked with the accused and pleaded him for help, therefore, he had the occasion and opportunity to see him, who lateron escaped. He has further stated that the Criminal Revision No.2383 of 2003 4 accused had stayed at the spot for sometime and talked with him. The other fact that there were two persons sitting in the tanker do not create any confusion regarding the identity of the driver as Munna Pal had seen the accused at the driver's seat. Besides him, Ishwar Singh (PW6), the owner of the tanker has made it clear that the accused was his driver over the tanker on the day of occurrence and Ghisa Ram (PW8) has also testified that he had seen the accused fleeing from the spot. As regards the argument that post-mortem reports are not proved on record, therefore, the same affect the prosecution case as in the absence of proof of post-mortem, the death of three persons cannot be said to have taken place. In the present case, not only three persons namely Ishwar Singh, Ram Pyari and Jagmal Singh had died but three persons namely Munna Lal, Santra and Parmila had suffered injuries. Buffalo and its calf had also died. The death report of buffalo has been proved as PW8/A by Dr.Mahender Kumar. The x-ray reports relating to the injured had also been proved as Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E to Ex.PW12/H. Munna Pal (PW1) and Santra (PW11) have stated that three persons had died at the spot and they had also suffered injuries, thus, this could be said to be the enough evidence to prove the death of these persons and there is nothing with the accused to challenge their statements. He even did not have suggested if they had not died during the accident, as such, non-examination of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Ram Pyari, Jagmal Singh and Ishwar Singh, is hardly sufficient to ignore that they had not died during the accident. Even otherwise, both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. The re- Criminal Revision No.2383 of 2003 5 appreciation of evidence at this stage is not permissible. The interference in the judgment could be made only in case, findings returned by the Courts are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, resulting into failure of justice but nothing such was seen. Resultantly, this revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 06.10.2010 mamta-II