Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 373 (PNJ)

Jagan Nath v. State Of Haryana

2000-04-03

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V. S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon dated 16-1-1987 and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dated 16-7-1988. The learned trial Court had help, the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 25-3-1983, Dhan Singh alias Dhani Ram was going on his cycle from his village Gurgaon towards Gurgaon town. It was 9.00 P. M. a truck bearing registration No. HRU-336 was driven by the petitioner and was coming from Gurgaon town side. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It dashed the front portion of the truck into the cycle. The result was that Dhan Singh fell down and sustained injuries. He was removed to the hospital where he died. As per prosecution case Jagminder Singh and Bhoop Singh were the two eye-witnesses. They were coming on cycles and had witnessed the entire occurrence. 3. The petitioners defence was that he was the driver of truck No. HRU-336 but denied that his truck was involved in the accident. According to him he had parked his truck on one side of the road. 4. The learned trial Court believed the statements of Jagminder Singh and Bhoop Singh the two alleged eye- witnesses and held that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently and accordingly held him guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A. Indian Penal Code. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that since the petitioner was driver of truck No. HRU-336, therefore, his identity is established. It was further held that the two eye- witnesses had seen the occurrence and accordingly dismissed the appeal but for reduction of the sentence. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. It is not in controversy that the deceased died as a result of the above-said road accident. The main question that arises for consideration is as to if he died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is a matter of fact to be determined on basis of evidence. 6. 5. It is not in controversy that the deceased died as a result of the above-said road accident. The main question that arises for consideration is as to if he died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is a matter of fact to be determined on basis of evidence. 6. The evidence of the prosecution in this regard had revolved on testimonies of two witnesses. Bhoop Singh PW-5 admittedly belongs to the community of the deceased. His statement by itself shows that he is not a witness of the accident. He recites clearly that it was dark at that time and he could not see who was going ahead him. He even added at the first instance that he cannot state as to who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. Thereupon he corrected himself by stating that it was the mistake of the driver namely the petitioner. But the presence of the witness at the site is doubtful because if he was present at the spot, he would have been the first person to reach the place of accident. But he added that when he reached the spot, many other persons had already been collected. All these facts clearly indicate that he could not be the eye-witness. His very presence being a chance witness is doubtful. 7. By and large similar is the position of Jagminder Singh PW.4. He admitted also in the similar manner that he is from brotherhood of the deceased. In a dark night it was difficult for the witness to identify the petitioner. Bhoop Singh (PW-5) is the other person who was on the same cycle. When Bhoop Singh could not see as to how the accident took place , the position of Jagminder Singh could not be any better. Therefore, necessarily it must be held that the evidence was totally lacking as to if the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted granting him the benefit of doubt. Revision allowed.