Partap Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a revision against the order dated 6.4.1996 of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby he partially allowed the appeal of appellant Pargat Singh (revision petitioner herein) from the order dated 17.4.1995 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur who had sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months, under Section 304A IPC.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 8.12.1990, Kakka Singh, Sarpanch of Village Norreke PS Sadar Jalalabad alongwith Kashmir Singh, Member Panchayat and one Milkha Singh s/o Surain Singh of Village Nooreke was going on his motor cycle to village Jiwan Arian along FazilkaFerozepur metalled road. Kakka Singh, PW was driving motorcycle while Kashmir Singh and Milkha Singh were sitting behind him. Twenty Karams ahead of them were going Surat Singh and Surjit Singh on scooter No. PB08/2994 to Village Jiwan Arian. Surjit Singh was driving that scooter while Surat Singh was sitting on its pillion. At about 2.00 p.m. when they were little short of Village Jiwan Arian and Surjit Singh and Surat Singh were ahead of them at a distance of 20 karams, Bus No. PB12/9905 of Punjab Roadways, Muktsar Depot was coming from Ferozepur side. It was being driven by Pargat Singh. Kakka Singh had known Pargat Singh since earlier. He was driving the bus at a fast speed, rashly, negligently and without blowing any horn. He brought the bus on wrong side and dashed it against Surjit Singh and Surat Singh. Surjit Singh and Surat Singh fell together with scooter. Pargat Singh stopped the bus and ran away. Surjit Singh and Surat Singh received injuries. They were taken to the hospital. They succumbed to their injuries. Matter was reported to the police by Kakka Singh, PW vide statement Exhibit PW 6/B to A.S.I. Surat Singh of PS Guru Harsahai on the basis of which case was registered. Initially the case was registered under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. Offence was converted into one under Section 304A IPC after the death of Surjit Singh and Surat Singh. Bus was found in order by the Motor Mechanic of Police Lines Ferozepur on test. As scooter had suffered extensive damage Motor Mechanic tested it but could not record any opinion.

After investigation, Pargat Singh was challenged under Sections 279/337/304A IPC.

Accused was charged under Section 304A IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide order dated 27.3.1991. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

At the conclusion of the trial Judicial Magistrate First Class Ferozepur found the charge proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months, vide JUDGMENT dated 17.4.1995.

Aggrieved from his conviction and sentence Pargat Singh went in appeal to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 6.4.1996 maintained conviction but reduced the sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/ and in default to further undergo R.I. for two months.

Still not satisfied Pargat Singh has knocked the door of this Court in revision namely criminal Revision No. 247 of 1996.

In this case, Kakka Singh and Milkha Singh, who were alleged to have witnessed the occurrence have been examined by the prosecution. Kakka Singh, PW has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he and Kashmir Singh were going on their scooter towards village Jiwan Arian while Surat Singh and Surjit Singh were going ahead of them on their scooter. He has omitted the name of Milkha Singh. Accident had taken place before they reached the place of accident. He did not witness the accident. He was declared hostile to the prosecution on the request of the Public Prosecutor, who crossexamined him. Nothing favourable to the prosecution could, however be elicited, through crossexamining him. Milkha Singh is thus the lone witness on whose statement the fate of the prosecution case hinges. Milkha Singh PW has stated that he, Kakka Singh and Kashmir Singh were going on motorcycle to Village Jiwan Arian. Motorcycle was being driven by Kakka Singh. Ahead of them Surjit Singh and Surat Singh were going on scooter. That scooter was being driven by Surjit Singh. They were ahead of them at a distance of 20 Karams. When they reached near the turning of Village Jiwan Arian, bus was coming in their front which was being driven by the accused at a fast speed rashly and negligently. Accused brought that bus on the wrong side and dashed it against the scooter being driven by Surjit Singh and Surat Singh. As a result of the impact Surjit Singh and Surat Singh suffered injuries. Bus passed over them both. Accused stopped the bus at the spot and ran away. Injured were taken in a jeep to the hospital by Jattu and Mangal Singh. They succumbed to their injuries in the hospital. The accident took place at about 2 p.m. Milkha Singh, PW belongs to Village Nooreke, PS Jalalabad while accused belongs to Village Ratol, PS Zira. Milkha Singh, PW has stated that he had known the accused since earlier. He has not given the reason why he was knowing the accused since earlier. Further he has not stated the bus number. In the first information report it is bus No. PB12/9905 which was involved in this accident. Bus No. PB12/9905 was found lying standing at the spot when the same was taken into possession by A.S.I. Surat Singh who investigated this case. It was this bus which was got tested by the Motor Mechanic of Police Lines, Ferozepur. Accused was sought to be connected with this accident by the prosecution by proving that the accused had been deputed to drive this bus on 8.12.1990. Mehal Singh, Duty Clerk, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar, PW4 stated that on 8.12.1990, Pargat Singh, Driver No. 39A was deputed on this bus from Muktsar for Ferozepur. This bus started at 6.50 a.m. from Ferozepur to Muktsar. This bus started from Muktsar for Ferozepur at 9.42 a.m. Balbir Singh was Conductor on this bus. Bus on which Pargat Singh was deputed as driver was bearing different number than the one mentioned in the Statement of Mehal Singh, PW4. Prosecution has made no effort to explain this discrepancy, Kakka Singh has said that they reached the spot after the accident had taken place. Milkha Singh has stated that they had witnessed the accident. At this point Kakka Singh and Milkha Singh are apart from each other. Benefit of their being apart on this vital point has to be given to the accused. It was suggested to Milkha Singh, PW that it was Surjit Singh who was driving scooter negligently and that it was he who was responsible for this accident and it was he who dashed their scooter against the bus. In my opinion, this suggestion could not be any evidence against the accused. Prosecution had to stand on its own legs to sustain the charge. Prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was driving the bus which was involved in the accident. If prosecution evidence is doubtful, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Prosecution cannot take advantage of the infirmities or weaknesses of the defence. It would bear repetition that it has to erect the entire edifice of the case itself and then to prove it. Prosecution case may be true but the criminal jurisprudence says that the prosecution case must be true. There is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true". All this distance has to be travelled by the prosecution by unimpeachable and reliable evidence.

For the reasons given above I am of the opinion that the learned Courts below were not justified in returning the verdict of guilt, against the accused on this stage of evidence as discussed. So, this revision succeeds and is accepted.

Revision allowed.