Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 515 (PNJ)

Ram Phal S/o Bhalle Ram v. State of Haryana

2009-03-18

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2002, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2000 and the order of sentence dated 26.09.2000, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, convicting the accused, for the offence, punishable under Sections 279, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and awarding sentence to him, for various terms of imprisonment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 12.02.1993,at about 6.30 am, Prem Singh, complainant, Chander Bhan and Anil Kumar were going to Panipat from Sunam, in Maruti Van, bearing registration No. DNH-8951, which was being driven by him ( Prem Singh ). Chander Bhan was sitting by his side, Anil Kumar was sitting at the back side. When they reached near village Saffa Kheri, from the side of Uchana, one truck bearing registration No. HRV-2612, being driven by Ram Phal, at a very fast speed,in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, came and struck against maruti van, towards conductor's side. Ultimately, with the impact of the accident, the front portion of the van turned towards Narwana side. As a result of the accident, Chander Bhan, proprietor of the maruti van, sustained multiple injuries, on his head and chest. He was removed to Civil Hospital Narwana by Anil Kumar. He, however, ultimately succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the statement, made by Prem Singh, the FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Prem Singh,(PW-1),Anil Kumar,(PW-2), Ashok Kumar,(PW-3),Virender Singh,(PW-4), Suresh Kumar, Photographer,(PW-5), and Dr. R.K. Singla, (PW-6). The prosecution, however, failed to examine the remaining witnesses. Ultimately, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. R.K. Singla, (PW-6). The prosecution, however, failed to examine the remaining witnesses. Ultimately, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2002, by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jind. 8. Still dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed by the revision- petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner submitted that, the driver of the truck, was neither rash nor negligent. He further submitted that, as such, the accident, did not take place on account of the fault of the accused, who was the driver of the truck, at the relevant time, but he was wrongly convicted by the Courts below on account of the mis-reading of evidence. He further submitted that Prem Singh, complainant,(PW-1), and Anil Kumar, eye witness, (PW-2) in clear-cut terms stated that the truck was on the left side of the road. He further submitted that since the truck was being driven, on the correct side of the road and there was dense fog, on that day, it could be said that the accident did not take place on account of the fault of the driver of the same. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent-State, submitted that the accident took place on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck by the accused. He further submitted that the factum of rashness on the part of the driver of the truck, stood proved, as with the impact of the accident, the face of the maruti van turned towards the other side. 12. He further submitted that the factum of rashness on the part of the driver of the truck, stood proved, as with the impact of the accident, the face of the maruti van turned towards the other side. 12. It is, no doubt, true that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion that the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below are perverse, illegal or erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. No doubt, the Courts below, recorded the concurrent findings, that the accused was guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it may be stated here, that such a finding recorded by the Courts below, is based on mis-reading of the evidence, as a result whereof miscarriage of justice, has occasioned to the petitioner. Prem Singh, complainant, (PW-1), in his cross-examination, in clear cut terms, stated that the truck, in question, was being driven, on the left side of the road. It means that the truck was being driven on the correct side of the road, at the time of the alleged accident. Since, the truck was being driven, on the left side of the road, it could not be said that the driver thereof, was rash or negligent in driving the same. Had the truck been driven, on the wrong side of the road, or taken to the wrong side of the road, it would have been said that, on account of the rashness or negligence of the driver thereof, the accident took place. The mere fact that after the accident, the face of the maruti van, turned towards the other side also did not go to establish, that it was the driver of the truck, who was rash or negligent in driving the same. From the statement of Prem Singh, (PW-1), it is evident that, on that day, there was a dense fog. From the evidence, on record, it thus, appears that the van, in question, in which the deceased was sitting, went to the wrong side of the road and struck against the truck, which was being driven, on the left side of the road, as a result whereof, the accident took place, leading to the death of Chander Bhan. From the evidence, on record, it thus, appears that the van, in question, in which the deceased was sitting, went to the wrong side of the road and struck against the truck, which was being driven, on the left side of the road, as a result whereof, the accident took place, leading to the death of Chander Bhan. One of the ingredients, for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, that the driver of the truck was rash or negligent, in driving the same, resulting into the accident, and leading to the death of Chander Bhan, was, thus, not proved. The findings recorded by the Courts below, that the accident took place on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck is, thus, erroneous, on account of the mis reading of evidence. The Courts below were, thus, wrong in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The judgments of the Courts below are, thus, liable to be set aside. 13. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2000, and the order of sentence dated 26.09.2000, rendered by the trial Court and the judgment dated 16.10.2002, rendered by the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, are set aside. If the petitioner is on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If, he is in custody, he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case.