Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 671 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-07-06

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a revision petition against the judgments of the court below, convicting the accused petitioner under Section 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one and a half years under Section 304A IPC and to pay fine Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months, RI for six months under Section 279 IPC and RI for six months under Section 337 IPC and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts in brief are that on 16.11.1982 in the area of village Teora on the G.T. Road, accused petitioner was driving truck No. HRR 6955 and was coming from Delhi side and going towards Ambala side. One tractor trolley was going ahead of the truck. Car No. HPA 7833 driven by Anantbir Singh was coming from opposite side. A tractor trolley was going ahead of the said car as well. On reaching near the bridge of village Teora, accused petitioner while driving the truck tried to over-take the tractor trolley going ahead of his truck and did so at a fast speed and in the process, the truck first hit the tractor going ahead of it and then hit the car and thereafter the truck got over- turned. Three of the occupants of the car namely Anantbir Singh, (who was driving the car), Rani Ratti Kumari and Karan Inder Singh were injured in the said accident and they were taken to Civil Hospital, Shahabad where Karan Inder Singh expired. The Doctor on duty informed the police whereupon, ASI Raghbir Singh of Police Station Shahabad reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Anantbir Singh and thereafter formal. FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Shahabad on the same date i.e. 16.11.1982. The case was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, accused petitioner Kartar Singh was challaned and the challan was put in the court. The learned Magistrate charged the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC to which charges, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined its evidence. Thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and said that he has been falsely implicated. The learned Magistrate charged the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC to which charges, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined its evidence. Thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and said that he has been falsely implicated. He said that in fact, he was driving the truck carefully and had also applied brakes but the car driven by Anantbir Singh struck against in his truck resulting in the accident. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused- petitioner as stated above vide judgment and order dated 15.12.1986. The appeal filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated August 12, 1987. Aggrieved against the same, the accused filed the present Revision Petition in this court. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the accused- petitioner. However, Shri Viney Jhingan, DDA has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard Viney Jhingan, DDA on behalf of respondent-State and have gone through the record with his help. 4. The first point taken in the grounds of revision on behalf of the accused - petitioner is that the drivers of two tractor trolleys which were going on the road at the time of accident, were not examined by the Prosecution and as such adverse inference should be drawn against the Prosecution for having failed to examine the best evidence. However, I find no merit with regard to this point. Nothing has come on record to show as to whether the drivers of these tractor trolleys were still available to the Police when the Police investigated this case. Furthermore, the drivers of these trolleys could not be said to be the best witnesses especially when the Prosecution had already examined PW3 Ratti Kumari and PW-5 Anantbir Singh (both injured) who were present in the car in question at the time of the accident. The injured witnesses were the best witnesses and they were joined by the Police in the investigation of the case and were examined as witnesses by the Prosecution. Thus, mere non-joinder of drivers of the tractor trolleys, in my opinion, would not be sufficient to throw away the case of Prosecution. 5. The injured witnesses were the best witnesses and they were joined by the Police in the investigation of the case and were examined as witnesses by the Prosecution. Thus, mere non-joinder of drivers of the tractor trolleys, in my opinion, would not be sufficient to throw away the case of Prosecution. 5. The next point taken in the grounds of revision, on behalf of the accused petitioner is that the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution and this had prejudiced the case of the accused, as the site plan of the place of accident has not been proved. However, I find no merit in this point as well. The Investigating Officer was not a witness of the occurrence. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, would not be sufficient to throw away the case of the prosecution. If the accused wanted to rely on the site plan, prepared by the Investigating Officer and relied upon by the Prosecution, being part of the documents attached by the Prosecution with the report under Section 173 Cr. P. C., the accused could certainly tender the same in his defence evidence. However, nothing of the kind was done by the accused. Now the accused-petitioner cannot be allowed to urge that he has been prejudiced by the non-examination of the Investigating Officer because the site plan of the place of accident has not been proved. As referred to above, the non- examination of the Investigating Officer on the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not be fatal to the case of prosecution. 6. The next point taken in the grounds of revision on behalf of the accused petitioner, is that the statements of PW-3 Ratti Kumari, PW-5 Anantbir Singh were discrepant and were not worthy of any reliance especially when they were interested witnesses. However, I find no merit in this point as well. Both the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the accused and no infirmity could be pointed out even before the courts below which may be sufficient to discard the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the manner in which the present occurrence had taken place. Both these witnesses are injured witnesses and the presence of these witnesses at the spot could not be disputed. Both these witnesses are injured witnesses and the presence of these witnesses at the spot could not be disputed. No discrepancy in the statement of these witnesses could be pointed out, even before the courts below. Both the courts below have placed reliance on the testimony of these witnesses to hold the accused guilty in this case. In my opinion, there is nothing on the record to show that the testimony of these witnesses is not worthy of any reliance. 7. The next point taken in the grounds of revision is that the photographs of the vehicles lying on the road would show that truck was on correct side of the road and the car had come on the wrong side and had struck against the truck. However, I find no merit in this point as well. The photographer had taken the photographs after the accident. The position of the vehicles, after the accident, by itself would not be sufficient to decide as to who was negligent at the time of accident. The substantive evidence in the form of the statements of eye-witnesses would be a decisive factor for determining the manner, in which the accident took place. In the present case, as referred to above, the statements of both the eye-witnesses namely PW-3 Ratti Kumari and PW-5 Anantbir Singh is cogent evidence for holding that the occurrence had taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution, i.e. on account of rash and negligent driving of truck in question by accused petitioner Kartar Singh. 8. The next and the last point taken in the grounds of revision is about the release of the accused petitioner on probation. It has been alleged that the accused-petitioner has been facing trial since 1982 and was the first offender and was entitled to be released on probation. However, I find no merit in this point as well, taken on behalf of the accused petitioner. The rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, while driving the truck in question had resulted into death of Karan Inder Singh (deceased) and injuries to other persons besides damage to the car. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the accused petitioner, who was admittedly driving the truck at the time of accident, would not be entitled to be released on probation. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the accused petitioner, who was admittedly driving the truck at the time of accident, would not be entitled to be released on probation. However the sentence of one and a half years under Section 304-A IPC can be reduced to one year, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. For the reasons recorded above, while reducing the sentence under Section 304-A IPC from nine and a half year to one year RI, besides fine of 500/- already imposed, the Present Revision Petition is dismissed.