Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 311 (PNJ)

Ajaib Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-03-17

S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
Judgment 1. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. He appealed against the order of his conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision petition. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 23-12-1985, the petitioner was driving a tanker (truck) bearing registration No. PJL-9785 in rash and negligent manner and when the tanker reached near the railway crossing at Phagwara, he dashed against a cyclist. The accident took place at 6.30 p.m. The petitioner allegedly ran away from the place before the police arrived there. 3. One eye witness examined in this case is PW 6 Ran Singh. The another eye witness, who was partly examined is, Mohan Singh. After some part of his deposition was recorded, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State requested the trial Court to defer the further examination-in-chief of Mohan Singh as the petitioner had not brought the tanker to the Court. The petitioner was directed to bring the tanker on the next date of hearing. Thereafter aforesaid Mohan Singh did not turn up. The trial Court held that it hardly matters that Mohan Singh did not turn up again for deposing in the Court because the case could independently be decided on the basis of statement of PW 6 Ran Singh who had lodged the complaint in the case. The trial Court further observed that it was equally open to the petitioner to examine Mohan Singh in defence. 4. I do not agree with this view taken by the trial Court. If the prosecution is not able to bring the witness to the Court the matter ends there. The accused cannot be expected to examine the prosecution witness as a defence witness. 5. The only eye witnesses in this case are PW-2 Mohan Singh and PW-6 Ran Singh. The other witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the accident. In view of this position, I turn to see, what is stated by PW-6 Ran Singh. According to his deposition, he was on duty at the time of the accident, at gate No. B-II on the G.T.Road, Phagwara. The other witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the accident. In view of this position, I turn to see, what is stated by PW-6 Ran Singh. According to his deposition, he was on duty at the time of the accident, at gate No. B-II on the G.T.Road, Phagwara. The railway track there leads from Phagwara to Jajo Bahram etc. At 6.30 p.m., when he was on duty, a tanker came from the side of Phagwara. He further stated that the truck was on rash speed as usual but it was dark at that time. He further stated that the petitioner Ajaib singh was driving truck at that time which struck against the cyclist who died at the spot. The defence of the petitioner is that he was not driving the vehicle at that time though he drives the said vehicle. The defence was not accepted by both the Courts below. However, even if the defence version is ignored, I find that the prosecution has not been able to show that it was rash and negligent driving of the petitioner which caused the accident. Of course, PW-6 Ran Singh stated that the truck was on rash speed as usual. The Punjabi version is [Vernacular matter omitted]. The Hindi version is driving at a high speed does not denote the driving in a rash manner. It cannot be accepted how the truck was atrash speed as usual.Therefore, when this is the only evidence leading to rash and negligent driving, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner which resulted in the death of the cyclist. 6. As mentioned earlier, there is no other eye witness and what this witness has stated is nothing as he has only deposed that the truck was coming at a high speed. He has not mentioned as to what approximately the speed of the truck was. There is no evidence regarding width of the road which, if mentioned, would have gone to show that a particular speed may be rash. However, as the approximate speed is not mentioned, the question of width of the road also need not be considered. It is not shown as to how the driving of the petitioner was rash. This being the position, the question of identity of the petitioner may not be gone into. However, as the approximate speed is not mentioned, the question of width of the road also need not be considered. It is not shown as to how the driving of the petitioner was rash. This being the position, the question of identity of the petitioner may not be gone into. The prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the petitioner. 7. As a result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction and the sentence against the petitioner are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence charged with. Fine if paid, is ordered to be refunded.