State of Punjab vs Sudama

Virender Singh, J. (Oral)

Sudama son of Mohan Lal stands acquitted by the impugned judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala dated 25.10.1991 for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC.

In short the prosecution case is that on 15.5.1989 at about 60AM, Hardial Singh (PW4) was going from his dairy farm towards bridge of Neelon village to take tea. When he was taking tea in a shop, Gurcharan Singh (PW5) met him and both of them started talking. A truck bearing registration No. PAN 9171 came from Garhi bridge side at a very high speed. A Sikh youth on a scooter (bearing No. PIM 2568) came from the side of Samrala. While he was going to cross the bridge, front portion of the said truck hit his scooter, as a result of which the scooterist, (whose name was lateron found to be Harduman Singh son of Mohinder Singh) fell down and died at the spot. After stopping his truck, the driver ran away from the spot. Gurcharan Singh PW made a report to ASI Harnarinder Singh (PW3) at the bus stand of village Gulal, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PW3/C) was registered at police station Samrala.

After completion of investigation, the respondent was challaned. He was charged under Sections 279/304A IPC.

In order to substantiate the charges against the respondent, the prosecution examined Dr. R.K. Garg (PW1), Ranjit Singh Photographer (PW2), SI Harnarinder Singh (PW 3), Hardial Singh (PW 4), Gurcharan Singh (PW5) and Jasbir Singh Mechanic (PW6).

The stand taken by the respondent as emerges from the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that either the owner or some other driver was driving the said truck at the time of accident and that the owner of the truck after calling him from his house produced him before the police and consequently this case was planted upon him.

After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents.

I have heard learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the file minutely.

Mr. Jain has vehemently contended that the acquittal of the respondent is bad inasmuch as the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on the record. He then contended that so far as identity of the respondent is concerned, it is well established as he had run away after stopping the vehicle at the spot and thereafter he was identified by the witnesses. According to the learned State counsel, the findings recorded by the trial Court are not sustainable and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be disturbed in appeal.

Refuting the submissions made by learned State counsel, Mr. Gill appearing for the respondent contended that the identity of the respondent is not at all established in this case and that the prosecution story suffers from many basic infirmities, for which the learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent.

After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and rescanning the entire evidence, I am of the view that the acquittal of the respondent is not liable to be disturbed. My reasoning for the same is an under :

Admittedly, the respondent was not named in the First Information Report. Even in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it had been mentioned that the police had come to know that the respondent has caused the accident. Admittedly no identification parade was held in this case. Identification of the respondent for the first time in Court is valueless. ASI Harnarinder Singh has stated in crossexamination that the respondent was produced before him by Sarwan Singh. There is no explanation as to how Sarwan Singh Sarpanch had come to know that the respondent was involved in the present occurrence. In my considered view, the evidence is lacking in the present case in regard to identity of the respondent. This material flaw goes to the root of the case and speaks volumes of false implication of the respondent. The learned trial Court has minutely discussed this aspect in para 6 of the its judgment. I have no reason to differ with the same.

The other ground taken by the trial Court for doubting the prosecution version is the shoddy investigation done by the Investigating Officer. There is a detailed discussion to this effect in para 7 of the impugned judgment.

Another material lacuna which dents the prosecution story is that Hardial Singh (PW4) and Gurbachan Singh (PW5), who are otherwise related to the deceased have given most discrepant statements on many material aspects.

Taking into account all the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, the learned trial Corp has extended benefit of doubt to the respondent and has acquitted him. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed being devoid of any merit.