Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- kanwaljit singh ahluwalia, j.1. the present revision petition has been preferred by balbir singh son of niranjan singh, who was named as accused in case fir no. 151 dated 17.12.1996 registered at police station bhawanigarh, under sections 304a and 337 ipc.2. the court of chief judicial magistrate, sangrur, found the petitioner guilty of offence under section 304a ipc and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-. in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. however, petitioner was acquitted by the trial court for offence under section 337 ipc.3. aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal.the court of additional sessions judge, sangrur, found no merit in the appeal and had dismissed the same.4. on receipt of information from rajindra hospital, patiala, regarding the admission of sukhwinder kaur, sarup singh, head constable of police station bhawanigarh, reached at the hospital for recording the statement of injured. on 17.12.1996, complainant bikramjit singh met sarup singh, head constable, and made his statement at 1.20 p.m. the statement has been exhibited as ex.pw.6/a. in the statement made, bikramjit singh stated that he is a resident of dilawarpur and was student of tenth class. he was married having two daughters, namely manjit kaur aged 4 years and paramjit kaur aged three months. on 16.12.1996, he along with his wife sukhwinder kaur and daughters manjit kaur and paramjit kaur, had gone to sangrur jail to meet his father-in-law visakha singh. the family had gone on scooter no. pbp-7346. when they were returning from the jail to their village, then in the revenue estate of village kala jhar, from the opposite side van of white colour bearing no. pb-13-6878, came at a very high speed. the driver of the van was sikh. the van hit the scooter, due to which scooter fell on the road. all the family members suffered injuries. people, who were gathered there, brought the injured to rajindra hospital, patiala, in a private jeep. after giving treatment, bikramjit singh, complainant, his wife sukhwinder kaur and daughter manjit kaur were discharged, however, younger daughter paramjit kaur was declared dead. the complainant left her wife and daughter at his house and accompanied by his father karnail singh and mohinder singh reached at the place of accident. there he learnt that the van, which had hit the scooter, belonged to harbans singh son of dalip singh, resident of bhawanigarh and the name of the driver was balbir singh son of niranjan singh. it was stated that the driver, after causing accident of the van with the scooter had decamped from the spot.5. the above said fir was investigated. report under section 173 cr.p.c. was submitted.6. petitioner was charged for an offence under section 304a ipc for having caused death of paramjit kaur. he was also charged for an offence under section 337 ipc for causing hurt to bikramjit singh, his wife sukhwinder kaur and daughter manjit kaur.7. the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.8. prosecution examined pw.1 dr.ramesh goyal, who stated that he had opined regarding, the fitness of sukhwinder kaur, injured, on police request ex.pa. however, when he went to the bed of injured, she had left the hospital.9. pw.2 dr. harish tulli, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of paramjit kaur, a child aged three months. he opined that the cause of death was coma due to head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.10. pw.3 sukhjit singh walia proved the registration of maruti van bearing no. pb-13-6878 which had caused accident. this vehicle was in the name of harbans singh son of dalip singh, resident of bhawanigarh.11. pw.4 harjit singh had taken photographs ex.pw.4/1 and ex.pw.4/2 of the spot. he also proved negatives ex.pw.4/3 and ex.pw.4/4.12. pw.5 jarnail singh, constable, had examined the scooter and van and submitted mechanical test reports ex.pw.5/a and ex.pw.5/b qua the scooter and the van, respectively.13. bikramjit singh, complainant, appeared as pw.6 and reiterated what was stated in the fir. he stated that maruti van was driven by the accused present in the court at a very high speed. in cross-examination, this witness stated that he learnt the name of driver at the spot, but driver, on seeing the condition of the injured, ran away from the spot. he further stated that driver met the injured and the complainant had asked his name. they had reached rajindra hospital at 2.30 p.m. and, thereafter, had again visited the spot at 4.00 p.m. he further stated in cross-examination that immediately after accident, they all became unconscious but he regained consciousness immediately.14. sukhwinder kaur appeared as pw.5. she also stated that the van was driven at high speed. the name of accused was not known to her. in cross-examination, she stated that right side of the van had collided with the scooter and the driver, after the accident, had come towards her.15. thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.16. the statement of accused under section 313 cr.p.c. was recorded. he denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence.17. the trial court had acquitted the accused under section 337 ipc on the ground that no medicolegal report of bikramjit singh, sukhwinder kaur, and manjit kaur, injured, have been produced on record. therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that any injury was suffered by the complainant, his wife and his daughter.18. mr. harsh aggarwal, advocate, appearing for the petitioner, had made following two submissions before me:a) bikramjit singh, in his statement ex.pw.6/a on the basis of which fir was registered, also in his deposition in the court as pw.6, and sukwhinder kaur as pw.7 had only stated that the maruti van was coming at a high speed. it was nowhere stated that maruti van was driven in a rash and negligent manner. according to counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove necessary ingredients of offence that offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.b) the prosecution has failed to prove identity of the petitioner/accused as driver of the offending vehicle.19. in view of the above contentions made, i have perused the evidence. except a bald statement that the vehicle was driven at a high speed, nothing else has been stated. they have even not mentioned their assessment regarding the speed at which the maruti van was coming. in support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon ajaib singh v. state of punjab 2000(2) rcri r 737. further reliance has been placed upon kandhar singh v. state of punjab 2007(4) rcri r 679.20. i find merit in the first contention raised by counsel for the petitioner. the hon'ble apex court in state of karnataka v. satish 1999 scc (cri) 1508 held as under:4. merely because the truck was being driven at a 'high speed' does not bespeak of either 'negligence' or 'rashness' by itself. none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately as to what they meant by 'high speed'. 'high speed' is a relative term. it was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by 'high speed' in the facts and circumstances of the case. in a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. there is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. in the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of 'rashness' or 'negligence' could be drawn by invoking the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur'. there is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was big jerk. it is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road and mechanical failure. the motor vehicle inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. that report is not forthcoming from the record and the inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. this is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.21. furthermore, in the present case, neither the investigating officer was examined nor any site plan of the place of occurrence has been proved by examining the draftsman. therefore, this court has been denied the benefit of visual observations. thus, there is no evidence before the court to arrive at conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. as this fact has neither come in the evidence of witnesses nor there is any document to prove this essential ingredient, on the file of the case. therefore, on this score, the present revision petition is to be accepted. still further, in the statement ex.pw.6/a on the basis of which fir was registered, the complainant stated that when after leaving his wife and daughter at home accompanied by his father karnail singh, he reached at the spot, he learnt the name of the driver, whereas in the court he stated that immediately after the accident, driver came to him and disclosed his name. it is not an innocent improvement. admittedly, the accused was not known to the complainant before the accident. in the fir, it is not mentioned that the accused had approached the complainant and disclosed his name. therefore, this part in the deposition of the witnesses in the court is to be ignored being material improvement. once the same is done, there is nothing with the prosecution to prove the identity of the driver. therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that prosecution failed to prove identity of the driver has merit and is to be accepted.22. as a result of the above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. the conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges.