Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1194 (PNJ)

Rajmal v. State Of Haryana

2002-11-13

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Rajmal son of Sher Singh has approached this Court through the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated July 13, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby his appeal against the judgment dated March 7, 1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Faridabad has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code have been maintained. Vide the aforesaid judgments the petitioner was convicted and sentence to undergo R.I. for a period of one and half years with a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on December 26, 1984 Raj Kishore PW made a statement Ex.PA before the police to the effect that his neighbour Daram Nath had died on December 18, 1984 as a result of the injuries received by him in the accident. It was mentioned by Raj Kishore that he along with one Amar Bahadur had removed Dharam Nath (deceased) to ESI Hospital for treatment from his house and the rickshaw-puller who had brought Dharam Nath-deceased could not be located at that time. According to the prosecution, subsequently Comrade Khem Singh and Munna Parshad continued searching and they came to know that Dharam Nath-deceased was brought to his house by rickshaw-puller Mohinder alias Anwa son of Gobind who had also brought his broken cycle and that the accident had taken place near Vidya Niketan School, Town No. 2 on the road, with truck bearing registration No. HRP 2570 which was being driven by Rajmal driver, while Dharam Nath-deceased was going on his cycle. The further version of the prosecution is that the said accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRP-2570 being driven by its driver Rajmal. 3. It may be pertinent to point out that as per the prosecution itself, whereas the accident had taken place on December 18, 1984 and the deceased Dharam Nath had died on the same day due to the aforesaid accident, but the FIR in this case was recorded on December 26, 1984 on the statement of aforesaid Raj Kishore PW. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented. The trial Magistrate vide judgment dated March 7, 1989 convicted the accused under Sections 304-A/279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one and half years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed. 4. The petitioner has now challenged the aforesaid two judgments of the courts below by way of the present revision petition. 5. Shri Mahesh Grover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is absolutely no justification for such an inordinate delay of 9 days inasmuch as the said accident whereby deceased Dharam Nath had died had taken place on December 18, 1984 and the FIR has been registered on December 26, 1984 on the basis of the statement of Raj Kishore PW. Shri Grover maintains that in fact aforesaid Raj Kishore had himself taken the aforesaid Dharam Nath-deceased to the hospital when he was brought in injured condition to home by a rickshaw-puller. Dharam Nath had died on the same day. In these circumstances, Shri Grover submits that it was incumbent upon the police to have registered the formal FIR on the same day. According to Shri Grover it is apparent that the deceased Dharam Nath had died due to some accident and the offending vehicle had made good its escape after causing the accident and that it was only an after-thought that the petitioner has been roped in. In these circumstances, the submission made by Shri Grover is that the delay in lodging of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. 6. Shri Grover has further pointed out that PW4 Kishori Lal has deposed that the police had come to the spot sometime after the accident and that he and Satpal had told the police that the accident had taken place in their presence. However, even then the FIR was not lodged and the details of the incident i.e. the particulars of the offending vehicle and the name of the driver were not mentioned. On the other hand, Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana submits that the delay itself is not fatal to the prosecution story. However, even then the FIR was not lodged and the details of the incident i.e. the particulars of the offending vehicle and the name of the driver were not mentioned. On the other hand, Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana submits that the delay itself is not fatal to the prosecution story. Shri Sehrawat submits that in the present case the entire prosecution version is duly supported by the cogent evidence and, therefore, there was no infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and in my view the present revision petition deserves to succeed. 8. It is not disputed that the accident wherein aforesaid Dharam Nath had died had occurred on December 18, 1984. Dharam Nath was brought in injured condition to his house when he was taken to the hospital by his neighbour Raj Kishore and Amar Bahadur. In fact Dharam Nath was brought to his house on a Rickshaw driven by one Mohinder alias Anwa son of Gobind. The aforesaid Rickshaw-puller has not been produced as a prosecution witness before the Court. On reaching the hospital Dharam Nath died after a short while. In these circumstances, when an unnatural death due to an accident had taken place on December 18, 1984, then there was absolutely no justification in lodging the FIR after 9 days. There is no explanation forthcoming for the said inordinate delay. In these circumstances, the submission made by Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner that the possibility of an after- thought and including the name of the petitioner subsequently could not be ruled out. 9. I have also noticed the fact that PW4 Kishori Lal had deposed that the police had come to the spot immediately after the accident and he and Satpal had told them that the accident had taken place in their presence. In these circumstances also, it cannot be suggested that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments of the courts below are set aside. The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are discharged.