Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 431 (PNJ)

Ranbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-04-25

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V. S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed by Ranbir Singh petitioner directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 7-5-1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak. The petitioner was held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 304a and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 . In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. He was further sentenced to, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 for, the offence punishable under Sec.279 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 19-7-1983 at about 7.30 p. m. Hawa Singh complainant along with Salig Ram and one Chhabila was going towards Meham from village Kharkara. When these persons crossed Meham minor, they saw a motorcycle bearing No. DEX - 5246 driven by Nihal Singh. One Med Singh was on the pillion. Truck No. HRH - 3087 was also coming from the same direction. The motor - cycle was being driven on the left side but the truck driver was driving the same rashly and negligently. As a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck, it struck in the hind portion of the motor - cycle. As a result of this, both the riders alongwith the motor - cycle were dragged to some distance. Nihal Singh died at the spot while Med Singh received injuries on the head. Chander Singh. Sarpanch of the village, also reached there. All the persons present raised an alarm. The truck was stopped. The driver disclosed his name as Ranbir Singh. When Hawa Singh and others were busy in taking care of the injured, petitioner fled from the spot. The injured was removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Hawa Singh complainant made a statement as a result of which formal First Information Report was drawn. The police visited the place of accident, prepared the site plan and took into possession the vehicles. They were mechanically examined. The site was photographed. The injured was removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Hawa Singh complainant made a statement as a result of which formal First Information Report was drawn. The police visited the place of accident, prepared the site plan and took into possession the vehicles. They were mechanically examined. The site was photographed. Post mortem was conducted on the persons of the deceased. It was thereafter that when the investigation was completed that report under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. 3. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently as a result of which two human lives were lost and accordingly passed the abovesaid judgment and order of sentence. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner and that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The same was dismissed. 4. At the outset, the first question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has been properly identified or not. Admittedly, he was not known to the witnesses. It is also not in controversy that no identification report (parade?) was held. However, the facts of the present case cannot be lost sight of. The proposition of law that test identification parade should be held will not apply and come to the rescue of the petitioner. This is for the reason that the truck was stopped and the petitioner was apprehended at the spot. He was seen and he had disclosed his name. It was later on that he managed to escape. In other words, his identity has been established and holding of identification parade would not have, served any purpose. 5. The cause of death was not in controversy that Nihal Singh and Med Singh had died as a result of the accident. 6. The evidence of the prosecution case revolved around the statement of Hawa Singh complainant, PW 1, Salig Ram, PW 2, Chander Singh, PW 3, and Hukam Singh, PW.4. They were all eyewitnesses to the accident that took place. They were consistent in their version that it was the petitioner who came driving his truck rashly and negligently and struck the motor cycle from behind. These witnesses had no axe to grind by deposing falsely. They were all eyewitnesses to the accident that took place. They were consistent in their version that it was the petitioner who came driving his truck rashly and negligently and struck the motor cycle from behind. These witnesses had no axe to grind by deposing falsely. Their version, therefore, cannot be ignored and was rightly acted upon. Some contradictions here and there are natural discrepancies. They are bound to occur even in most truthful witnesses. When substraium of their evidence had not been shaken, it was rightly held that, the petitioner had driven the truck rashly and negligently. 7. Some defence witnesses had been examined so as to indicate that the version of the petitioner is correct that he was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. But this was entirely a new case that had been set up. It had never been so suggested to the witnesses of the prosecution. It was clearly an afterthought and thus the defence was rightly rejected. 8. It is true that human life is important but when the incident had taken place about 18 years ago, it looks inappropriate at this stage to direct the petitioner to undergo rest of the sentence. The interest of justice would be fully met if sentence is reduced to the one already undergone with no interference on the quantum of fine. Order is made accordingly. 9. Subject to the above modification, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed with modification in sentence.