Dock identification by stranger witness without Test Identification Parade is unreliable for proving accused's identity as driver, absent investigating officer's explanation of apprehension and vehicle owner's testimony.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.(learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2011 and order of sentence dated 01.03.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly, stated the facts leading to the present revision are that the police filed a challan against the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). It was stated that informant Nachhatar Singh (PW-4) was going to Bagbania on 13.05.2005. He reached Patwarkhana at 12:45 p.m. when a tipper came at high speed from Baddi. The tipper crushed a dog and collided with a motorcycle. The tipper stopped after approximately 70-80 feet, and the driver fled from the scene. The motorcyclist’s right leg was crushed, and he sustained multiple injuries. The motorcycle bore registration No. PB11Y-7296, and the tipper bore registration No. HR68-4470. The accident was caused by the tipper’s excessive speed and the driver’s negligence. The injured person was taken to the hospital, and an intimation (Ext.PW-7/A) was given to the police Station. HC Neelam Kumar (PW-7) and HC Roop Singh were sent to the hospital, while Constable Narender Kumar was sent to the place of the incident. HC Neelam Kumar (PW-7) submitted an application (Ext.PW-7/B) seeking the Medical Officer’s opinion on the injured’s fitness to make the statement. The Medical Officer certified that the patient was gasping and unfit to make the statement (Ext.PW-4/A). HC Neelam Kumar (PW-7) recorded the statement of Nachhatar Singh (PW-4) which was sent to the police station, where the FIR (Ext.PW-7/C) was registered. HC Neelam Kumar also took photographs (Ext.P1 to P11), whose negatives are Ext.P12 to P22, and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-7/D). He seized the tipper bearing registration No. HR68-4470 vide memo (Ext.PW-1/A), and the motorcycle vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). Rajinder Singh (PW-5) conducted the mechanical examination of the tipper and motorcycle. He found no defects in them that could have caused the accident. He issued a report (Ext.PW-5/A). The injured succumbed to his injuries. An inquest (Ext.PW-7/F) was conducted, and an application (Ext.PW-7/E) was made for the post-mortem. Dr Yuvraj Shauri (PW-10) performed the post-mortem examination. He found multiple fractures, profuse blood loss, hypovolemic shock, cardio-respiratory arrest, leading to death. He issued the report (Ext.PW10/A). The tipper's documents were seized vide memo (Ext.PW7/G). The motorcycle was handed over to Sabar Ali, brother of the deceased, through a memo (Ext.PW-6/A). Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their accounts, and after completing the investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the IPC and Section 187 of the M.V.Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined