Sajjan Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J.—The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala, as under:

Under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code:

R.I. for one and a half year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months.

Under Section 337, Indian Penal Code:

R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 1� months.

Under Section 279, Indian Penal Code:

R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 1� months.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, his conviction and sentences were upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this appeal.

The prosecution case as set up at the trial was that on 29th March, 1981, PW 3 Amar Singh, resident of Jalandhar along with his family members, was travelling in a borrowed Matador No. BJQ 999 for pilgrimage and was returning from Amritsar. At about 9.30 p.m. when the Matador crossed the bridge over river Beas and was passing through the area of village Miani, a tractor trolley No. PBF 4632, driven by Sajjan Singh Petitioner, came from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the tractor trolley was being driven rashly and negligently and the Petitioner swerved his tractor to his right side and dashed the trolley into the Matador van and the right hand side of the said Matador Was completely ripped apart and all the persons travelling in the Matador were injured. In the meanwhile, a Punjab Roadways bus came from Amritsar side and took the injured persons to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where three of the injured persons, namely, Amarjit Kaur, Kumari Guddi and Harjinder Singh, succumbed to their injuries. Harminder Singh injured, also succumbed to his injuries when he was being transferred from Civil Hospital, Jalandhar to a hospital at Ludhiana.

The case was registered in Police Station Dhilwan on the basis of the statement of Gurmukh Singh (PW 2), injured, recorded by S.I. Amar Singh (PW 5) on the following day at 3.30 p.m. in the Civil Hospital at Jalandhar.

At the trial, the Petitioner denied the prosecution allegations but admitted the occurrence. However, he gave his own version and pleaded that on the day of occurrence he was driving the tractor at a very slow speed and was on his extreme left side when the Matador involved in the accident came from the opposite direction. The driver of the Matador was in a drunken condition and he swerved his Matador and struck against the trolley and then drove to his wrong side and thus the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Matador driver. The driver of the Matador ran away from the spot and it was he (Petitioner) who had informed the police at the police station. The Petitioner, however, did not produce any evidence in defence.

The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Gurmukh Singh (PW 2) and Amar Singh (PW 3). They are the witnesses of the occurrence. They were travelling in the same Matador which met with an accident. Dr. Mohinderpal Singh (PW 1) medically examined Jodh Singh, driver, who has not been produced. Dr. Bimal Bedi (PW 7) conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Harminder Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Harjinder Singh and infant child of Harbans Singh on 30th March, 1981. Although the eye-witnesses Gurmukh Singh and Amar Singh PWs have supported the prosecution version, but there are certain circumstances in this case which make the prosecution version doubtful. PW 5, S.I. Amar Singh investigated the case. In his cross-examination he admitted that when he visited the spot, the Matador was on the wrong side of the road. If Matador was on the wrong side, then it cannot be said that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the Petitioner. Moreover. Jodh Singh driver of the Matador has not been produced by the prosecution. In fact, he, after the accident, made good his escape and was examined by the investigating officer on 1st April, 1981. It is not known as to why he has not been produced in court. He was a material witness and he could explain the circumstances as to how the Matador went on the wrong side of the road.

In the first information report lodged by Gurmukh Singh (PW 2), although he has stated that the did not know the name of the driver of the Matador, who had taken them to Amritsar and was bringing them back, but he has given full details of the Petitioner, who belongs to district Ferozepore. It is not known as to how he came to know the details about the Petitioner. Thus, the version of the Petitioner seems to be probable that he stopped the tractor and reported the matter first to the police. Otherwise, if the Petitioner had also escaped, it would not be possible for the police or the first informant to know the exact details about the Petitioner. In the first information report, me name of the Petitioner, his parentage and the name of his village is also given. From this it can be inferred that the details of the Petitioner''s address were taken from the Petitioner himself by the police and the first information report was recorded on the following day in the afternoon. In all fairness the Petitioner has admitted the occurrence, but he gave his own explanation, which seems to be probable in the circumstances of the case. It is really unfortunate that four persons lost their lives and some others suffered injuries due to the accident, but the Petitioner cannot be held responsible, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, for the accident. It is not known whether Jodh Singh, driver of the Matador, had a valid driving licence to ply the Matador and nothing has come on the record in this regard. It was the duty of the investigator to bring all these facts on the record, but he has not done so.

For the reasons recorded I am of the view that it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the Petitioner. He is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

In the result the revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence as recorded by the courts below are set aside. Fine, if already deposited, shall be refunded to the Petitioner.