Angrej Singh vs State of Haryana

Surinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner faced trial for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304-A and 411 Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC by trial Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2011 and awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC. Separate sentence u/s 279 IPC was not awarded with the observation that offence u/s 304-A IPC covers the ingredients of offence u/s 279 IPC.

Not satisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 02.05.2014. The conviction and the sentence awarded to the petitioner were maintained.

Brief Facts

As per the case of the prosecution, on 31.12.2005 Major Singh (PW1) and Shiv Ram (deceased) after finishing their work at the shop of Surinder Kumar, complainant at Pehowa Road, Cheeka left for their village Naya Gaon and were waiting for transport to go to their village, at Cheeka Chowk, where a Sonalika tractor came and both took lift on the mud-guard of that tractor. The petitioner was the driver of the tractor. He was under the influence of liquor and was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. He did not care for the request of Major Singh (PW1) to drive the tractor carefully. Due to his rash and negligent driving, the tractor over-turned and Shiv Ram got trapped under the tractor. The petitioner fled away from the spot. Major Singh came to complainant Surinder Kumar, who along with some persons reached the spot and extricated Shiv Ram from below the tractor and rushed him to Mahavir Dal Hospital from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. After leaving Major Singh to take care of the injured at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, the complainant returned to the spot where the tractor-trolley were not found.

He had noted the engine number, chassis number and other inscriptions of the tractor which he got recorded in his statement (Ex. PW8/A) to the police. ASI Karambir Singh of Police Station Cheeka reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and inquired about the fitness of Shiv Ram to make statement but he was declared unfit. On the statement of complainant Surinder Kumar Ex. PW8/A, ruqa Ex. PW10/B was sent to the police station, whereupon initially a DDR No. 12 dated 01.01.2006 was recorded for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC but later on after the death of Shiv Ram on 21.01.2006, the offence u/s 304-A IPC was added. After completion of investigation, final report u/s 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 411 IPC was presented in the Court.

Arguments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the FIR, the petitioner was not named. The police had recorded the statement of only eyewitness Major Singh after nine days of the occurrence. He is a planted witness. No identification parade was conducted in this case. The testimony of PW2 Surinder Kumar, who is not an eyewitness, is only a hear-say and not reliable. The owner of the tractor bearing registration No. PB-70-8791 appeared as PW6 but has not named the petitioner as driver of the tractor, at the time of accident.

Learned State counsel has argued that Major Singh is resident of Naya Gaon while the petitioner is resident of village Dera Pucca Khera. He had no enmity with the petitioner, rather had taken lift on the tractor of petitioner. Major Singh, as well as, deceased were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and had the opportunity to see the petitioner very closely. The petitioner has been identified by Major Singh while appearing as PW1. Both the Courts have rightly relied upon his testimony while reaching the conclusion about identity of the petitioner as well as his rashness and negligence while driving the tractor in question. PW2 Surinder Kumar was called to the spot to extricate Shiv Ram, who had got entrapped under the tractor. Major Singh (PW1) immediately after the incident had disclosed the entire matter to him and it was Surinder Singh, who rushed to the spot of accident and after taking out, sent Shiv Ram to hospital, as such his statement is relevant. He had noted the engine number and chassis number of the tractor. The name of Amarjit Singh Virk resident of village Dera Pucca Khera was inscribed on the tractor with paint. The mere fact that the police has recorded the statement of eyewitness Major Singh after nine days of the occurrence, in no manner suggest that he is a procured witness or his testimony is not reliable.

After careful consideration of the respective submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and on perusal of the evidence recorded by the trial Court and the record of the trial Court on file, I find no apparent illegality or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below for the reasons as follows:-

(i) Both Major Singh PW1 and deceased Shiv Ram were working as labourers on the shop of complainant Surinder Kumar PW2 who was having a cement shop at Pehowa Road, Cheeka. Surinder Kumar has stated that after completing their day''s work on 31.12.2005, they proceeded towards their village. This shows that both Major Singh PW1 and deceased Shiv Ram were present at the shop of Surinder Singh and had gone towards their village together and thus, ruling out the possibility of Major Singh being an introduced witness at later stage. (ii) Surinder Kumar, PW2 has stated that after leaving his shop, Major Singh came to him at about 8.30 PM and told about their taking lift on the tractor of petitioner who was driving it in a very rash and negligent manner and that due to his (petitioner''s) rashness and negligence, the tractor over-turned and Shiv Ram got entrapped under it. He accompanied Major Singh to the spot and with the assistance of the passers-by, extricated Shiv Ram from below the tractor and shifted him to Mahavir Dal Hospital from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He (Surinder Kumar PW2) had noted the chassis number and engine number of the tractor and inscription of name on the tractor as Amarjit Singh Virk, resident of village Dera Pucca Khera, which he provided to the police in his statement Ex. PW8/A. The testimony of this witness remained unshattered in his cross-examination and there is nothing to disbelieve the same.

(iii) Major Singh eyewitness appeared as PW1 and has narrated the whole incident. He has stated that when they were standing on Cheeka Chowk for going to their village Naya Gaon, a Sonalika tractor came there and they took lift on it. The petitioner was driving this tractor in a rash and negligent manner. He was under the influence of liquor. He ignored their request to drive the tractor carefully and the tractor overturned. PW1 Major Singh had identified the petitioner as the person who was driving the tractor. He was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and had seen the driver of the truck from close proximity as such, his testimony regarding the identity of the petitioner as driver of the tractor has been rightly relied upon by the Courts below.

(iv) This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Major Singh PW1 is a planted witness, is not tenable because his presence at the time of accident has been mentioned in the FIR itself and as per PW2 Surinder Kumar, it was Major Singh who informed him about the accident and helped him to take out the deceased who had got entrapped under the tractor.

(v) This fact is also immaterial that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner was not known to the complainant or to Major Singh by name. The involvement of the tractor in the accident is proved as the chassis number and engine number of the tractor find mentioned in the FIR and it is nowhere defence of the petitioner that the tractor in question was not involved in the accident. Major Singh (PW1) had no animus or reason for false implication of petitioner. His testimony has been rightly relied by the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any apparent illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the conclusion of the Courts below is not based on proper appreciation of evidence or on misreading of evidence, so as to interfere with the same.

As a sequel of my discussion above, I find no merits in this petition. The same is dismissed.