Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 339 (PNJ)

Satpal v. State of Haryana

2000-03-24

S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - Satpal petition was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against he said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and hence this revision petition. 2. The defence of the petitioner is that he was not driving the truck in question at the relevant time. It may be stated that according to the case of the prosecution the deceased was going in a tonga and the truck involved in the accident and which was driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against it. The tonga was going on its correct side while the truck went on the wrong side and dashed against the tonga, as a result of which, one person who was sitting in the said tonga received fatal injuries and died. 3. So far as negligence is concerned, there is nothing in the evidence which would show that any doubt can be cast on the deposition of the witnesses regarding negligence. The main question is regarding the identity of the petitioner as a driver of the truck at the time of accident. From the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the accident, according to the Courts below, they have been able to establish that the petitioner was driving the truck. The lower appellate Court has also considered the fact that the petitioner had given two applications one dated 1.2.1983 and the second dated 26.3.1984 for return of the registration certificate of the truck on superdari. The accident had taken place on 16.3.1982. So far as these two documents are concerned the document dated 1.2.1983 is not on the record of the trial Court file and the application dated 26.3.1984 does not take the prosecution case any further by which only superdari of the registration certificate of the truck has been asked for. It is not anybodys case that in the application dated 1.2.1983 the petitioner had admitted that he was driver of the truck. 4. It is not anybodys case that in the application dated 1.2.1983 the petitioner had admitted that he was driver of the truck. 4. This then takes me to the question of identification of the petitioner as a driver of the truck by the eye-witnesses. The lower appellate Court has observed that Bhoja Ram, PW-2, Moti Ram PW-4, Mehma Ram PW-5 and Sita Ram (and not Satpal) PW-11 are the eye-witnesses. Sita Ram PW-11 has stated that on the day of his deposition, he could not recognise the driver. Even though some of the eye-witnesses have identified the petitioner as the driver of the truck in the Court, it is not in the evidence that they were knowing the petitioner before the accident and when this is the position, the absence of identification parade assumes importance in this case. It has to be seen that according to the case of the prosecution, the driver of the truck had run away from the spot. That means he was not arrested at the spot by the police and it is equally true that he was not taken to the police station by any of the witnesses from the spot of the accident. This being so only identifying the petitioner is the Court will not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Asking for superdari of the registration certificate of the truck much subsequent to the date of the accident does not lead to any inference which can be beyond doubt that the petitioner was driving the truck. 5. Though the accident, because of the negligence of the driver of the truck, has been established by the prosecution, identification cannot be said to be established beyond doubt. This being the position the conviction cannot be sustained. Even though there is finding of both the Courts below against the petitioner on this point, it is apparent that this finding cannot be said to be legal because none of the witnesses was knowing the petitioner before the accident so that they could have known to him by name or recognised him by face, as a known person, at the time of accident. Again as stated above, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot nor was taken by any of the witnesses to the police station from the spot of accident. Again as stated above, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot nor was taken by any of the witnesses to the police station from the spot of accident. This being so in the absence of identification parade it will be hazardous to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. 6. As a result, this criminal revision is allowed and the conviction against the application is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence charged against him. Revision allowed.