Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order dated May 15, 1999, has preferred this revision petition as the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions u/s 304 1PC.

The case relates to the year 1993. Vide FIR No. 141 dated July 24, 1993, a case u/s 304A IPC was registered against Rajinder Singh petitioner. As aprimafacie case u/s 304A IPC was made out, the petitioner was charged thereunder and the case was adjourned for prosecution evidence.

It is stated that in four years period only one witness i.e. a mechanic has been examined and no other witness has been examined by the prosecution. Instead of producing the evidence, the prosecution has filed an application under Sections 216/313 Cr.P.C. by raising the plea that the accused had intentionally caused death of Balkar Singh, as is made out from the statement of Sukhdev Singh-complainant.

The learned Magistrate, after considering the submissions made by both the sides, came to the conclusion that the case falls u/s 304 IPC and not 304-A IPC, and thus committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide the impugned order, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard Mr. A.K. Walia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Tiwana. Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab.

It is an admitted fact that the prosecution has not produced any evidence before the trial Court, but for examining one witness i.e. a mechanic. Whether the statement of a mechanic was enough to convert the case u/s 304 from 304A IPC ? The answer to this query is in the negative, because on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation of the case, the case was registered u/s 304A IPC. Apart from this, as observed by the trial Court under para 5 of the impugned order, the legal representatives of the deceased Balkar Singh had filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala vide its award dated November 4, 1995. Thus, under these circumstances, when compensation has been awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased u/s 166 of the Act, the present case, by no stretch of reasoning, can be stated to be covered u/s 304 IPC. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. In a somewhat similar case reported as Dr. J.S. Parwana v. State (U. T. Chandigarh) 1995 RCR 276 the Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions without examining any witness except one witness, the order of commitment was quashed.

For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order being perverse whereby the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the trial Court for trial.

Revision allowed.