Criminal Appeal No.96-SBA of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.96-SBA of 1998 Date of decision : 27.11.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Pishori Lal Passi ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Bawa, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-accused was convicted by the learned Trial Magistrate for the commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC. The charge upheld was that he caused the death of Sukhdev Singh by driving his car bearing registration No. CHK 3863 at a rash speed and in a negligent manner. The impugned occurrence was witnessed by Jeet Singh, an uncle of the deceased, who was on way home after purchasing medicines. The respondent only took the deceased to the hospital but fled thereafter. Learned Trial Magistrate placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Jeet Singh. The promptness with which the FIR was lodged was noticed by the learned Magistrate who also observed that there is nothing on record to suggest that Jeet Singh had any inimical inclination against the respondent/accused for falsely framing him in the case. Criminal Appeal No.96-SBA of 1998 -2- **** However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the verdict and exonerated the respondent/accused of the charge afore- mentioned. In the verdict of reversal, learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed that the photographer ( PW-4 – Devinder Singh) had denied having photographed the spot and further because no test identification parade was got held to fix the identity of the respondent as the perpetrator of the impugned crime. The State is in appeal against the impugned exoneration of the respondent-accused. I have heard Ms. Manjari Nehru, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant and Mr. G.S.Bawa, learned counsel for the respondent-accused and have carefully gone through the record. On appraisal of the material obtaining on the file, I find myself in agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Ist Appellate Court. The reasons therefor are as under:- It is apparent from the record that Jeet Singh is the only purported eye witness. As per the prosecution presentation, he was driving his scooter and his son was a pillion rider at the time they witnessed the impugned occurrence. Jeet Singh categorically testified as under:- “At the time of accident I was driving the scooter. I came to know about the accident after I had parked my scooter.” The tenor of his statement is indicative of the fact that he could not have noticed the manner in which the impugned accident had taken place. There is yet another reason on account of which Jeet Singh could not have been in a position to precisely notice the manner in which the impugned accident had taken place. The pillion rider was in a better position to have witnessed impugned accident. He was not examined at Criminal Appeal No.96-SBA of 1998 -3- **** the trial. The rough site plan does not, at all, indicate the place where from the impugned accident had been witnessed by Jeet Singh. The site plan also does not indicate any skid marks. A rough site plan in an accident case ought to indicate the place where the accident had taken place, the place from where the witness had witnessed it and also the skid marks, if any, on the site of the accident. In the face thereof, learned State counsel argues that the vehicle in question was found to have dent on it and report by the Mechanic would prove that fact. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused is correct when he argues that the report by the Mechanic cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that it was not put to the respondent/accused in the course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Apart therefrom, it requires pertinent notice that photographer contradicted the statement by the Investigating Officer that former had photographed the site of accident. The presence at the spot of Jeet Singh would also appear to be unnatural. The reasoning in support thereof is indicated in the course of the judgment under challenge. I find myself in complete agreement and also the reasoning noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in support thereof. It is apparent from the record that there is nothing perverse in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR Criminal Appeal No.96-SBA of 1998 -4- **** 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it so ordered accordingly. November 27, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE