Criminal Revision No.667 of 2000(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.667 of 2000(O&M) Decided on : April 28, 2010 Parnam Singh ... Appellant VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 3.6.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal of Parnam Singh – petitioner/accused (herein referred as `the accused') against the judgment dated 28.4.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On 22.10.1996, the complainant Sardool Singh (herein referred as `the complainant') along with his cousin Avtar Singh was going to Amrit Soap Factory, Malwal (Ferozepur) on their bicycles. At about 8.00 AM, when they reached near the pig farm on the GT road in the area of village Malwal, then the accused while driving the truck bearing Reg.No.WB-23-2331 rashly and negligently came from the side of Malwal and struck against the bicycle of Avtar Singh, as a result of which he came Criminal Revision No.667 of 2000(O&M) [2] under the truck and was crushed. On the aforesaid statement recorded at 10.00 AM, the FIR was registered. ASI Ashok Kumar inspected the spot, prepared the rough site-plan of the place of occurrence, took the bicycle, `chapples' and tiffin of the deceased into possession, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the necessary formalities, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Court. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr.Baldev Raj Arora (PW1), Sardool Singh – complainant (PW2), Balvir Singh (PW3), ASI Ashok Kumar (PW4) and HC Amarjit Singh (PW5). During his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and further explained that no accident with his truck took place, rather he was falsely implicated in the case, when he was present in the grain market along with the truck. In defence, he examined Banta Singh (DW1) and Kashmir Singh (DW2). However, the trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Counsel for the accused while urging that he is innocent, contended that the case is of mistaken identity; the element of rashness and negligence does not stand proved and that the prosecution story is not probable as the speed of the truck was 40 to 45 KM per hour. Criminal Revision No.667 of 2000(O&M) [3] Having scrutinised the records of the case and hearing the arguments, I do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the accused. The main point for consideration is whether the accused was driving the truck rashly and negligently at the relevant time. In order to establish this fact, the complainant (PW2) while appearing in the witness box has deposed on solemn affirmation that he and his cousin Avtar Singh (deceased) were on different bicycles, Avtar Singh was going ahead of him at a distance of 5/7 karams. The offending truck came from the back side and struck against the bicycle of Avtar Singh. He has specifically deposed that the accused was driving rashly and negligently. Though, this witness has stated that the truck was at a speed of 40/45 KM per hour, yet he could not measure the same, but could well explain the manner in which the deceased was driving the bicycle and the accused his truck. Neither a particular speed, nor a high speed are the essential elements to assess the rashness or negligence, but the Court is to make out this element from the facts, circumstances and the manner in which, he was driving. Whether the accused was careful and good in his judgment while driving the vehicle are other aspects to determine the rashness and negligence. The high speed could further contribute towards commission of the crime. The deceased, while driving the bicycle was on his correct side, whereas, the truck was being driven on the wrong side. The accused, while on wheels was obliged to sit with his eyes open and drive with care and caution, having in mind the other vehicles going on the road side. Another circumstance, that the accused after striking the bicycle fled away from the spot, also goes a long way to prove his guilty Criminal Revision No.667 of 2000(O&M) [4] mind. It indicates that the accused being afraid of the consequences of crime committed by him, escaped to avoid the legal punishment. The presence of the complainant is not doubtful at the spot. He has deposed the entire incident in all minute details. He was cross-examined at length, but nothing fruitful could be elicited, which could be treated as sufficient to doubt his presence. He has duly identified the accused, when he was on the wheels. His statement was recorded at the spot. The occurrence has not been denied by the accused as Banta Singh (DW1) when appearing in the witness box deposed that he along with Gurmail Singh was present near pig farm and the truck which was being driven rashly and negligently came from the Moga side and its driver tried to struck it against them, but they saved themselves, and, thereafter, it struck against the bicycle and fled away. Thus, on appreciation of the defence evidence also, the only question left unanswered is that as to who was driving the offending truck. It is only the complainant i.e. an eye- witness (PW2) who could explain as to who was driving the offending truck. The accused was arrested on the same day and the truck was taken into police custody. Had he been innocent, he would have taken the matter to the higher authorities and pleaded false implication in the case. As regards the question of identification, the Test Identification Parade is required only in cases where the occurrence took place during night hours, when neither the complainant/victim nor the witnesses had an occasion to identify the accused; the criminal was not known to the parties or the witnesses had no occasion to see the culprit. However, in the present case, the evidence reveals that the accused was already known to the Criminal Revision No.667 of 2000(O&M) [5] complainant and he disclosed his complete address in the FIR recorded instantly at 10.00 AM. He was duly identified by the witness in court as well. It was day light and the witness had every opportunity and occasion to see and identify the driver of the offending truck. As such, there was no necessity for holding Test Identification Parade in such a case. It is a well- settled law that when the accused are known by the complainant, then there is no necessity for Test Identification Parade. Even otherwise, the accused never requested the Court for Test Identification Parade. Therefore, under these circumstances of the case, no question of mistaken identity arises. The FIR is also prompt, which bears the name of the accused. The medical evidence is quite consistent with the ocular version. There is no reason to falsely implicate him, by replacing the original culprit. The defence version set up by him has neither been duly proved, nor supported by any cogent evidence. Both the courts below have concurrently returned the findings with regard to the negligence of the accused in driving of the vehicle, as a result of which life of Avtar Singh stood vanished within twinkling of an eye. No such illegality or irregularity could be pointed out by the counsel for the accused, so as to invoke the revisional powers of this Court. The sentence awarded to the accused also commensurates with the gravity of the crime committed by him. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. April 28, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE