Manjinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present revision petition has been filed by Manjinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh. He was put to trial in case FIR No. 261 dated 24.10.2002 registered at Police Station Jandiala under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar found the petitioner guilty of offence u/s 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PW2/A made by Gurmej Singh PW-2 to ASI Sarabjit Singh (not examined). In his statement, complainant Gurmej Singh stated that he was an Electrician by profession. His younger brother Satnam Singh was a student of Guru Nanak Dev University. On 24th October, 2002, Satnam Singh and Gurmej Singh along with their father Dyal Singh PW-1 were going to the local Bus Stand, Jandiala Guru on foot. Satnam Singh was going a little ahead. Gurmej Singh and his father Dyal Singh were going together. At about 9.30 a.m., a mini bus bearing registration No. PB 02 Q-9867 came from Vairoval side, which was being driven by a Hindu gentleman, at a very high speed and without blowing any horn. The bus, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit Satnam Singh and its driver ran away from the spot. Satnam Singh was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

The above said FIR was investigated and a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused petitioner.

The petitioner was charged by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar on 11th February, 2003. The charge stated that on 24th October, 2002 at about 9.30 a.m. in the area of Jandiala Guru, he was driving a mini bus bearing registration No. PB 02 Q-9867 in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he had caused death of Satnam Singh.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution examined Dyal Singh as PW-1. His examination in chief was recorded. Thereafter, he never stepped into the witness box and thus, he could not be cross examined. Thus, the statement of Dyal Singh PW-1, without cross examination, cannot be relied upon and the same has to be kept out of consideration.

Complainant Gurmej Singh appeared as PW-2. For the first time, in Court, he identified the accused present in Court as the person who was driving the mini bus. He had also named the accused in the Court. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the FIR neither the petitioner was named nor any description of his identity was given. In cross examination, this witness stated that he had not given the particulars or description of the accused in the FIR and he had also not identified the accused earlier in any Court. In the present case, no test identification parade was conducted.

Santokh Singh PW-3 was a Mechanic, who had submitted mechanical test report regarding the offending mini bus.

ASI Darshan Singh PW-4 was present along with the Investigating Officer and had attested the memo PW-4/1, whereby the mini bus was taken into possession. This witness further stated that the Investigating Officer had sent the dead body for post mortem.

In the present case, neither the photographer nor the draftsman and nor even the Investigating Officer have been examined. Therefore, this Court is deprived of any visual observations, wherefrom it could be inferred as to who was responsible for the accident. The Court has to rely upon the testimony of the solitary witness, i.e. Gurmej Singh PW-2. Dyal Singh PW-1 had not offered himself for the cross examination. Gurmej Singh had not mentioned the name of the accused in the FIR. He had also not divulged any description or mark of identification of the accused in the FIR. It was only for the first time that he identified the accused in the Court. Even though the Courts have held that identification in the Court is a substantive piece of evidence, the Courts have always insisted that the same ought to be corroborated by a test identification parade or any other reliable evidence. No such evidence is forthcoming, rather in the cross examination PW-2 Gurmej Singh had stated that he had not identified the accused earlier and that he had not mentioned the name and description of the accused in the FIR. Therefore, taking all these circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that as a matter of abundant caution, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused petitioner.

Accordingly, present revision petition is accepted. Conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges.