Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 891 (PNJ)

Satbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-08-21

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision is directed by the accused against the judgment dated 8.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 20.4.1999 and 21.4.1999 respectively passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/337/304-A, IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279, IPC, to undergo three months RI under Section 337 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months under Section 304-A, IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that 27.11.1991, P.W.1 Surjit Singh complainant along with Angrez Singh (now deceased) had gone to Karnal on motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-32-1516 for the purpose of distributing the wedding cards as the marriage of his daughter was to take place on 14.12.1991. Angrez Singh was driving the motor cycle while he was sitting on the pillion. When they were at a distance of 4 kilometers from Kaithal, then truck No. HR-02-7798 came from the opposite side and it was loaded with bricks. It was being driven at a very fast speed and by going on wrong side it struck against the motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the motor cycle fell down and Angrez Singh received serious injuries and died at the spot. P.W.1 Surjit Singh also suffered injuries. 3. P.W.10 H.C. Darshan Singh recorded the statement Ex. PA of Surjit Singh complainant and sent it to Police Station Sadar Kaithal after making his endorsement Ex.PW8/A. Accordingly, the FIR was registered. The dead body of Angrez Singh was subjected to post mortem examination by P.W. 5 Dr. A.K. Mittal on 27.11.1991 and he gave his post mortem report Ex.PW5/A. Surjit Singh complainant also got himself medically examined and copy of his medico-legal report is Ex. PW7/A. The truck and the motor cycle were got mechanically examined. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the challan was put in Court. 4. Having found a prima-facie case against the petitioner, he was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A, IPC vide order dated 4.12.1992 to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. PW7/A. The truck and the motor cycle were got mechanically examined. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the challan was put in Court. 4. Having found a prima-facie case against the petitioner, he was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A, IPC vide order dated 4.12.1992 to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the prosecution allegations. 5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner was found guilty and convicted under Sections 279/337/304-A, IPC, and was sentenced as stated above vide order dated 21.4.1999. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.3.2001. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Sheoran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned AAG for the State of Haryana and also gone through the file. 8. The case against the petitioner rests on the testimony of P.W.1 Surjit Singh. It is in his evidence that the truck which was loaded with bricks had struck the motor cycle from the front which was being driven by his companion Angrez Singh (now deceased) and further the motor cycle was dragged upto a distance of 7/8 feet. Thereafter the truck stopped and its driver saw the injured and the deceased, and then ran away leaving the truck at the spot. P.W.1 Surjit Singh was already injured while his companion had died at the spot. It is difficult to believe that he had seen the driver of the truck at the spot. It was admitted by P.W.1 Surjit Singh in his cross-examination that the name of the driver and the number of the truck were told to him by the police. Therefore, it appears that the police after enquiry, came to know the name of the petitioner as driver of the truck and its number and then P.W.1 Surjit Singh mentioned the same. In fact, it suggests that he had not seen the petitioner at the spot. Therefore, the identity of the petitioner being driver of the offending truck is doubtful. Therefore, it appears that the police after enquiry, came to know the name of the petitioner as driver of the truck and its number and then P.W.1 Surjit Singh mentioned the same. In fact, it suggests that he had not seen the petitioner at the spot. Therefore, the identity of the petitioner being driver of the offending truck is doubtful. Mere saying in the Court that the petitioner was the driver of the truck is no identification. Moreover, no driving licence of Angrez Singh has been produced on file, so, it is doubtful that Angrez Singh has having a driving licence to drive the motor cycle. Thus it cannot be held that the accident had taken place due to the rush and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. P.W.3 Constable Jai Kishan who had mechanically examined the motor cycle, had stated in his cross-examination that it might be possible that clutch of the motor cycle was not in working condition. If the clutch of the motor cycle was not in working condition then certainly, it was difficult to control the motor cycle. 9. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the judgment dated 20.4.1999, and the order dated 21.4.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, as well as the judgment dated 8.3.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, this revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted. His bail bonds stand discharged.