Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 691 (PNJ)

SATISH KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2014-04-09

R.P.NAGRATH

body2014
JUDGMENT : R.P. Nagrath, J. The instant revision has been filed to challenge the concurrent findings of conviction against the petitioner, recorded by both the Courts below for offences under Sections 279/307A IPC. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of SL, months with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Talwinder Singh S/o. Gurdeep Singh PW 2 (complainant). He stated that on 15.12.2004, Bhajan Singh S/o. Joginder Singh had gone to attend the marriage of his cousin sister. Bhajan Singh (deceased) was the brother-in-law (brother of wife) of complainant. The complainant also went to attend that marriage. After attending the marriage, Bhajan Singh was coming on his scooter No. HR-1-C-S172 with his wife Gurwinder Kaur as pillion rider. Two children of Bhajan Singh were also riding on the scooter one child was one year old son and the other three years old daughter. Talwinder Singh was following them on his motor-cycle No. HR-1-M-1088. It was at about 4.00 p.m. that they reached near the cold storage near village Tepla. In the meanwhile bus No. HR-55A-1746 of Haryana Roadways came from Ambala side. The bus was being driven at a fast speed and the driver did not blow any horn and hit the scooterists who fell on the road. Bhajan Singh became unconscious. The bus driver alighted from his vehicle and disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar, No. 640. Bhajan Singh, his wife and children were taken to Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh in the same bus. Bhajan Singh, however, had succumbed to the injuries on reaching the hospital. Wife of Bhajan Singh and his children were admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, the bus driver Suresh Kumar is stated to have fled from the hospital alongwith his vehicle. 2. To prove the charges against the petitioner, prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Post-mortem report Ex. PX of the deceased was also tendered. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. 3. Thereafter, the bus driver Suresh Kumar is stated to have fled from the hospital alongwith his vehicle. 2. To prove the charges against the petitioner, prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Post-mortem report Ex. PX of the deceased was also tendered. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have minutely gone through the judgments of both the Courts below and the record with their able assistance. I find that the findings reached by the Courts below cannot be approved as important material which was relevant for consideration has been ignored. In this way the findings to hold the petitioner guilty would apparently be perverse which deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned petitioner's counsel rightly contended that the Appellate Court has not gone into the question whether the petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle on a public highway. There was in fact no appropriate discussion on this important ingredient even by the trial Court. If that is the fact situation, the delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. with the police would also assume importance. ASI Raghbir Singh, PW 1 stated that he received a telephonic call from Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh on 6.12.2004. When he reached at the gate of the hospital, the complainant met him and recorded his statement Ex. PA. The dead body of Bhajan Singh was brought to AP Jain Hospital, Rajpura where post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. 5. PW 2 Talwinder Singh, does not utter a word that the bus driver brought the vehicle on the wrong side of the road or that victim was driving the scooter on the proper side of the highway. PW 1 ASI Raghbir Singh stated that he visited the spot and prepared rough sketch Ex. PE of the place of occurrence, at the instance of complainant. In the cross-examination PW 1 stated that he cannot tell the details about the place where the scooter and bus were located after the accident, as may have been explained to him by the complainant. In the rough sketch Ex. PE, he even did not mention the details of the accident and the distance between the place of accident and the place where dead body of the deceased was lying. In the rough sketch Ex. PE, he even did not mention the details of the accident and the distance between the place of accident and the place where dead body of the deceased was lying. On perusal of site plan Ex. PE, the point from where PW 2 Talwinder Singh saw the occurrence while riding on his motor-cycle has even not been mentioned. PW 2 Talwinder Singh simply stated that the bus came from Ambala side at a high speed and hit the scooterists. PW 1 the Investigating Officer has not stated anything about taking into possession the stains of blood from the spot when he visited the spot on 6.12.2004. 6. Learned Appellate Court observed in para 22 of its judgment that "no doubt, only Talwinder Singh, complainant, has appeared in the witness box to prove the case of prosecution, but it is not his case that any other person had also witnessed the accident in question. So, when his testimony is found to be cogent, convincing and trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the same is not corroborated by any other witness to the occurrence." 7. Gurwinder Kaur wife of the deceased in fact was the only natural witness whose examination was essential. The trial Court record would show that statement of Gurwinder Kaur under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.1.2005 i.e., about one month of the occurrence. Summons/process against Gurwinder Kaur was issued by the trial Court on several occasions and the prosecution was unable to produce her. Report on the summons was that she had re-married. 8. The above aspect, therefore, was totally ignored by the Appellate Court and there was in fact no such discussion in the judgment of the trial Court about the effect of non-examination of Gurwinder Kaur. 9. The presence of PW 2 Talwinder Singh at the time of occurrence seems to be improbable and suspicious as Bhajan Singh (deceased) had gone to attend the marriage of his cousin sister with whose family the complainant was not closely related. The delay of about 18 hours in recording the F.I.R. seems to have enabled Talwinder Singh to be introduced in the story. The F.I.R. Ex. PA2 shows that it reached in the Court of Area Magistrate, on 7.12.2004. 10. The delay of about 18 hours in recording the F.I.R. seems to have enabled Talwinder Singh to be introduced in the story. The F.I.R. Ex. PA2 shows that it reached in the Court of Area Magistrate, on 7.12.2004. 10. Learned petitioner's counsel further contended that as per the prosecution story itself, the bus driver took the victims in the same bus to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32 Chandigarh and thus did not try to run away from the spot. That would rule out his guilty mind. This immediate conduct of the petitioner is a relevant fact. 11. It would be useful to refer to the following observations in para 7 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Vinod Kumar v. State 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 569.: "7. No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the bus have been taken. PW 10 the alleged eyewitness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner, except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded one." 12. When the presence of PW 2 complainant seems doubtful at the spot, the fact that the bus was being driven at the fast speed can also be not accepted. Therefore, the manner in which the accident took place could be appropriately proved by examining Gurwinder Kaur who has not been examined. 13. From the above serious deficiencies in the evidence and the material discussed above, the findings reached by the Courts below cannot be approved being passed in ignorance of the material available on record. The instant revision is allowed and the judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts below are set aside and petitioner stands acquitted of the charges against him. The instant revision is allowed and the judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts below are set aside and petitioner stands acquitted of the charges against him. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Copy of this order be sent to all the concerned for immediate compliance.