Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

Sham Sunder, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8.10.2001, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.7.2000, rendered by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and awarding sentence to undergo RI for a period of three month, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine, to undergo further RI for seven days for the offence punishable u/s 279 IPC; to undergo RI for three months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo RI for seven days, for the offence u/s 337 IPC, and to undergo RI for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs. 900/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month, for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC, and at the same time directing that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

The facts, in brief, are that on 15.3.1998, Balwinder Singh along with Sukhdev Singh had gone to village Boharwala to fix the marriage of his brother Davinder Singh, on scooter No. HR-21-5355. In the evening, they were returning from village Boharwala, to their village Johal Thakriwala and the scooter was being ridden by Sukhdev Singh, whereas he was the pillion rider. At about 6.30 pm, when they were at a distance of 1-1/2 furlongs, ahead of bridge of Bhawanipur, one tractor No. PB-63-5120 came from the side of Kapurthala. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. They were on their correct side of the road. By rash and negligent driving, the tractor struck against their scooter, as a result whereof, both of them fell on the road. They inquired about the name of the tractor driver, and he disclosed his name as Nirmal Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Fattu Dhinga. In the meantime, one maruti van came from the side of village Bhawanipur. The driver of that van shifted them to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. The tractor driver fled from the spot, after leaving the tractor. Sukhdev Singh succumbed to his injuries, in Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. Balwinder Singh, complainant, also received injuries in the said accident. On receipt of information from Civil Hospital, SI Santokh Singh, Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala, reached the same. He recorded the statement of Balwinder Singh, narrating the aforesaid facts, on the basis whereof the FIR was registered. Thereafter, SI Santokh Singh went to the spot, and took into possession the tractor along-with the registration certificate thereof. The scooter along with the registration certificate, was also taken into possession. Inquest report of the dead body of Sukhdev Singh was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279/337 and 304-A IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jagmohan Singh Walia, Photographer, PW1, Constable Gurmej Singh, PW2, Dr. J.S. Wadhwa, PW3, Dr. Gur-Iqbal Singh, PW4, Dr. Gurbachan Singh, PW5, Balwinder Singh, PW6 and Inspector Santokh Singh, PW7. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

Peeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition was filed by the revision petitioner.

I have heard the counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

The Counsel for the revision petitioner, at the very out-set submitted, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, regarding the proof of guilt of the accused, are illegal, perverse and erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. He further submitted that, from the evidence produced by the prosecution, the identity of the accused, as driver of the tractor, at the relevant time, was not proved. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, are either illegal or perverse or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. Balwinder Singh, PW6, was the pillion rider of the scooter, whereas, rider thereof was Sukhdev Singh. On account of the injuries, received by Sukhdev Singh, in the accident, he died. The accident, as per the statement of Balwinder Singh, took place at about 6.30 p.m. on 15.3.1998. Balwinder Singh, while appearing as, PW6, stated that the tractor came in a rash and negligent manner, and struck against the scooter, being ridden by Sukhdev Singh and he was the pillion rider thereof. He, in clear-cut terms, stated that the driver of the tractor ran away from the spot He further stated that he could not see the driver of the tractor. During the course of his cross-examination, it was stated by him that the driver of the tractor was not known to him, earlier to the accident, nor he had seen him prior to the said accident. He further stated during the course of his cross-examination, that no talk between him and the driver of the tractor took place. He further stated that he came to know of the name of the driver of the tractor, from the people. From the overall reading of the evidence of Balwinder Singh, the sole eye-witnesses, to the accident, it is proved that he could not identify the driver of the tractor at the spot, as he was not earlier known to him. At about 6.30 p.m, in the month of March, there must be darkness to some extent. There is nothing, on record, that there was any source of light, at the place of accident. Since the driver of the tractor was neither earlier known to Balwinder Singh, nor he had a talk with him at the place of accident, nor the driver of the tractor remained at the spot for a sufficient longer period, it could not be said that Balwinder Singh properly identified him. Even the identification parade of the accused, was not conducted, during the course of investigation to pin-point his identity, as the perpetrator of crime. No other evidence was produced to prove the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. Under these circumstances, the findings arrived at, by the trial Court, and affirmed by the lower appellant Court, that it was the accused, who by rash and negligent driving of the tractor, struck the same, against the Scooter, being ridden by Sukhdev Singh, the pillion rider whereof was Balwinder Singh, leading to the death of the former, are completely perverse and illegal, as also erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. The findings, recorded by the Courts below, with regard to the establishment of the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, thus, warrant interference, and liable to be set aside. The judgment of the Courts below, are also liable to be set aside, on account of the aforesaid reasons.

No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

For the reasons recorded above, Criminal revision petition No. 1596 of 2001, is accepted. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside. The revision petitioner shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. If the revision petitioner is on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If he is in custody, he be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, is directed to comply with the judgment promptly, in accordance with the provisions of law, on receipt of a certified copy thereof.