Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1134 (PNJ)

Krishan v. State of Haryana

2003-08-13

JASBIR SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - Appellant was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short the Code) for having caused death of Smt. Kitabo, aged about 50 years, by running his buffalo cart, over her, in a rash and negligent manner and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence this appeal. 2. It was case of the prosecution that on February 26, 1992, accused-appellant had caused death of Smt. Kitabo by running over her, his cart in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly FIR No. 50 dated February 27, 1992, was recorded against the appellant at Police Station Gohana for commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Code. 3. It was allegation against the appellant that on February 26, 1992. Smt. Kitabo was coming from the side of her fields while holding head-load of green fodder and when she reached near the village pond. She was hit from behind by a buffalo-cart being run at a very high speed and in a rash manner. Her husband Chander Roop (PW3) tried to save her and during that process, he also had a narrow escape. Since Smt. Kitabo was run over by the wheels of the cart and she got injured, she was taken to Civil Hospital, Gohana. There she died on February 27, 1992. F.I.R. was recorded at the instance of her husband Chander Roop. 4. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the competent Court. However, the trial Magistrate after looking into evidence on record came to a conclusion that since there were allegations of causing injuries intentionally to the deceased, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for its trial under the provisions of Section 304 of the Code. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 304, Part I of the Code. Prosecution led evidence to prove its case. In that process, two of the eye witnesses, namely. PW1 Jagdish son of Roop Chand and PW2 Khetu son of Banawri were declared hostile. Only PW3 Chander Roop, husband of the deceased, supported the prosecution version to a larger extent. 5. Prosecution led evidence to prove its case. In that process, two of the eye witnesses, namely. PW1 Jagdish son of Roop Chand and PW2 Khetu son of Banawri were declared hostile. Only PW3 Chander Roop, husband of the deceased, supported the prosecution version to a larger extent. 5. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. He also took up a defence that he was quite diligent while driving his cart. The accident had occurred due to interception of his he-buffalo by a he-buffalo of the Gram Panchayat. His animals got frightened at the spot, he failed to control and in that process, due to bad luck and without any negligence on his part, accident took place. Appellant led evidence in defence also. 6. Trial Court, after appraisal of evidence on record, came to a conclusion that no offence was made out under the provisions of Section 304. Part I of the Code with which he was charged. However, it was found by the trial Court that the appellant was guilty of causing death of Smt. Kitabo by running over her, his cart in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 304-A of the Code. 7. Shri H.S. Hooda, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, vehemently contended that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court are not justified. There existed no evidence on the record to prove that the appellant was rash and negligent while running his cart. By referring to the statements of PW1 and PW2, Shri Hooda contended that both the witnesses had failed to support the prosecution version and they were declared hostile. Even thereafter, they were not cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and their earlier statements were not put to them. He, by referring to the statement of PW3 Chander Roop, submitted that even he too, failed to support the prosecution version in its entirety and the trial Court had not believed this witness in toto. By raising these arguments, he prayed that the judgment under challenge be set aside. 8. Shri G.P.S. Nagra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently controverted the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. By raising these arguments, he prayed that the judgment under challenge be set aside. 8. Shri G.P.S. Nagra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently controverted the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. He contended that the guilt of the appellant was proved on record. He submitted that there existed sufficient evidence against the appellant and his conviction was perfectly justified. He, by referring to the statements of DW1 and DW2, contended that these were interested witnesses and as such no reliance could be placed upon their testimony. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court are not justified. A bare reading of statement made by PW3 Chander Roop, husband of the deceased, indicates that even he had not supported the prosecution version in its entirety. Trial Court had found it, as a matter of fact, that this witness was somewhat over-jealous to state that the death of Smt. Kitabo was caused intentionally by the appellant-accused. This witness, after stating that his relations with the family of the appellant-accused were cordial and there was no enmity, went on to state that the death was caused with a motive by the appellant. This part of the statement had rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. Apart from this, there was no evidence on record to show that the cart was being run by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner. PW3 had admitted that a compromise was effected between the parties and he was still sticking to that compromise. 10. Trial Court had failed to take note of the evidence led in defence, wherein the witnesses have categorically stated that the animal got frightened due to the sight of he-buffalo of the Gram Panchayat, went amuck and could not be controlled, as such, the appellant was not at fault. There existed no corroboration to the statement of PW3, who definitely was an interested witness, being husband of deceased Smt. Kitabo. Despite opportunities given, the other two prosecution witnesses, who were declared hostile, were not put to cross-examination. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the appellant-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgement and order are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appeal allowed.