The State of Punjab vs Nachhattar Singh @ Chaila

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The epitome of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 3.12.1997, complainant Gurdeep Singh (PW1) (for brevity "the complainant") along with Tehal Singh (PW2) was going towards their village Saidpur on scooter, bearing registration No. PB-08-HP-013. Daljit Singh and his son Akashdeep were coming on their scooter, bearing registration No. PB-08L-1063. As soon as, the scooter of Daljit Singh reached the place of occurrence, in the meantime, a white colour Tata Estate vehicle, bearing registration No. DL-1-CF-5038 (for short "the offending vehicle"), being driven by respondent-accused Nachhattar Singh alias Chaila son of Sukhdev Singh, came in a very rash and negligent manner. He could not control and rammed the offending vehicle into the scooter of Daljit Singh and thrown him and his son on the road. They were removed to the Civil Hospital in an injured condition. Subsequently, taking into consideration their serious condition, the injured were referred to hospital at Ludhiana. As luck would have been, Daljit Singh succumbed to his injuries. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the accident in question had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of respondent Nachhattar Singh while driving the offending vehicle, in which, Daljit Singh succumbed to his injuries and his son Akashdeep Singh received injuries. The complainant reported the matter to ASI Swaran Singh (PW3), who recorded his statement (Ex. PA). He made his endorsement (Ex. PA/1) and sent it to police station for registration of a case. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the respondent-accused, vide FIR No. 213 dated 3.12.1997 (Ex. PA/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the respondent-accused to face the trial for the indicated offences.

Having completed all the codal formalities, the respondent-accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC by the trial Court. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the respondent-accused, examined complainant Gurdeep Singh as PW1, Tehal Singh as PW2, ASI Swaran Singh as PW3, Surjit Ram as PW4, Dr. Bhupinder Singh as PW5 and C. Desu Dass as PW6 in oral evidence, besides tendering recovery memos (Ex. PB, Ex. PC, Ex. PD, Ex. PH & Ex. PI) and rough site plan of place of occurrence (Ex. PE) in documentary evidence.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the respondent-accused was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, the respondent-accused has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication.

The trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal in the manner described here-in-above.

The State of Punjab still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal. That is how I am seized of the matter.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record that the trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused, vide a very brief impugned judgment of acquittal dated 6.1.2000, the operative part of which is (para 8) as under:-

After going through the arguments and evidence on the record, it is concluded that PW1 and PW2 are giving inconsistent statement regarding the place of occurrence and they have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Tata Estate was driving rashly and negligently by Nachhatar Singh. When, the prosecution evidence has failed to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt regarding rash & negligently driving, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. Then PW5 was examined, even his statement during the cross-examination reflect that the possibility of deceased having received the injuries against the striking very hard surface cannot be ruled out in favour of the accused. The other prosecution witnesses PW4 and PW6 are immaterial as the prosecution witnesses having been failed to prove the fact regarding the rash and negligently driving by the accused and hence, benefit of the accused is to be given to the accused and prosecution has failed to prove the offence U/s. 279/337/338/304A IPC. Hence, accused be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. File be consigned to the judicial record room.

Meaning thereby, the main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court to acquit the accused were that the statements of PW1 and PW2 are inconsistent, they have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent-accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and that doctor (PW5) has stated in his cross-examination that possibility of injuries on the person of the deceased by striking against hard surface cannot be ruled out.

Here, to me, the trial Judge has slipped into a deep legal error and did not record the cogent reasons in this respect. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others, has ruled (para 8) as under: -

The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.

As in the instant case, according to the prosecution that on 3.12.1997, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-accused Nachhatar Singh alias Chaila, while driving the offending vehicle, culminating into the death of Daljit Singh. As is evident from the record that complainant (PW1) and Tehal Singh (PW2), the eye witnesses of the accident in question, have duly supported the prosecution version. The ocular version of PW1 & PW2 finds further corroboration from the medical evidence of PW5 Dr. Bhupinder Singh. PW3 ASI Swaran Singh has testified his investigation.

PW1 & PW2 gave a consistent version of accident and inter-alia stated that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-accused, in which, Daljit Singh had died. The trial Court did not record any cogent reasons that how and in what manner, the statements of PW1 & PW2 (eye witnesses) are inconsistent, as regards the causing of actual accident by the respondent-accused while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, culminating into the death of Daljit Singh, are concerned. Likewise, the mere fact that the doctor (PW5) has deposed, in his cross-examination, that the pointed injuries could be caused by striking against hard surface or one alien line in cross-examination of the statements of prosecution witnesses, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to ignore the entire evidence of eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 and doctor (PW5). In this manner, the trial Court just ignored the prosecution evidence with impunity without appreciating it.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the trial Court was required to independently assess and appreciate the entire evidence on record. The criminal Courts are not required to throw the entire prosecution case on one or two irrelevant lines here and there in the cross-examination of the witnesses as has been done in the present case by the trial Court. Hence, it did not apply its judicial mind to the basic principle of appreciation of entire evidence in criminal cases. Moreover, the impugned judgment of acquittal is non-speaking, non-reasoned and is the result of lack of application of mind in this regard. The trial Court ought to have discussed the evidence/material on record and was legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a correct conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective. The judgment must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every such judgment must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the death of a person and valuable rights of the parties are involved. The same are totally lacking in this case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot legally be maintained and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merit, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the subsequent hearing, the instant State appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to trial Court to examine the evidence in pointed right perspective and then to pass a reasoned judgment in accordance with law

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present appeal. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial/successor Court on 4.9.2013 for further proceedings in the matter.