Criminal Revision No.733 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.733 of 2005. Date of Decision: 20.04.2011. Baljit Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision arises out of the following facts:- On September 6th, 2000 at about 10.30 PM, a truck bearing No. PAT-5185 (for short “the truck”) was parked on the road- side in the area of village Talwandi Khuman. A Gypsy Jeep bearing No. HIS-3183 (for short “the Gypsy”), driven by Baljit Singh – petitioner, came from behind. Kulwant Singh, father of Baljit Singh and Kuldip Singh (since deceased) were travelling in the said Gypsy. The Gypsy struck against the rear portion of the truck, as a result of which, Kuldip Singh died on the spot. On September 7th, 2000, Baljit Singh made statement (Exhibit PA) to Inspector Tirath Ram (PW-4), Incharge, Police Post - Tahli Sahib, Police Station Kathu Nangal- Investigator. On the basis of his statement, Daily Diary Report No. 10 (Exhibit PA/2) was recorded. Jaspal Kaur widow of the deceased (PW-2), Investigator and Baljit Singh reached the spot. Statement (Exhibit PA/5) of Jaspal Kaur was recorded in which, she stated that nobody was to be blamed for the occurrence. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Batala. Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-6) conducted post mortem examination on the Criminal Revision No.733 of 2005 2 .. dead body of Kuldip Singh and proved the post mortem examination report (Exhibit PW-6/A). 2. On completion of investigation and other formalities charge sheet/challan was filed against Baljit Singh, driver of the Gypsy and Lakhbir Singh, driver of the truck and as they pleaded not guilty, they were brought to trial. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined Pritam Singh (PW-1), Jaspal Kaur widow of Kuldip Singh (PW-2), Kamal Singh (PW-3), Inspector Tirath Ram – Investigator (PW-4), Gurbachan Singh (PW-5), Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-6), Constable Ranjit Singh (PW-7), Nirmal Singh (PW-8), and Lal Chand (PW-9). 4. In their examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their complicity with the offence in question and pleaded innocence. 5. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, by judgment and order dated January 24th, 2004 convicted Baljit Singh and Lakhbir Singh under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 279 IPC for three months and under Section 304-A IPC for one and a half years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 6. Aggrieved of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, accused filed appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by his judgment dated March 23rd, 2005 acquitted Lakhbir Singh but upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court qua Baljit Singh – petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed by him. 7. Counsel heard on either side. 8. In this case, occurrence took place on September 6th, 2000 at 10.30 PM. Initially, no case was registered. On September 26th, 2000, Pritam Singh (PW-1), father of deceased, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police filed complaint (Exhibit PA/5) to the effect that on September 6th, 2000, in his presence, Baljit Singh and his father Kulwant Singh had taken away his son in their Criminal Revision No.733 of 2005 3 .. Gypsy from a liquor vend, where Kuldip Singh – his son was an employee. On his statement, First Information Report No. 132 was registered against Baljit Singh and Lakhbir Singh on September 26th, 2000. Prosecution, to support their case, relied upon the evidence of only two witnesses, viz. Pritam Singh (PW-1) and Nihal Singh (PW-8). Indeed, Pritam Singh did not witness the occurrence. His statement was also not relied upon by the trial Magistrate that in his presence, Kuldip Singh accompanied Baljit Singh and his father Kulwant Singh. However, from the suggestion given by the defence counsel to Pritam Singh (PW-1) that Kuldip Singh accompanied Baljit Singh in his Gypsy of his own, shows that he was travelling in the Gypsy when accident took place. It is no body's case that Kuldip Singh was not travelling in the Gypsy. The only eye-witness cited and relied upon by the prosecution was Nihal Singh (PW-8) but he did not support the prosecution case. While appearing in the witness-box, he categorically stated that he did not witness the occurrence. Otherwise too, had he been witness to the occurrence, his first duty would have been to inform the Police immediately that the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. His statement, for the first time, was recorded on September 28th, 2000, that is, after 22 days of the occurrence. It shows that he was introduced later on to give the version of eye- witness account of the accident. The requirements of Section 304-A IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that there was rash or negligent act of accused which was the cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the accused which is lacking in the present case. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of Baljit Singh – petitioner, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Thus, the revision is accepted and the Criminal Revision No.733 of 2005 4 .. orders under challenge are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. His bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 20.4.2011 som