PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
Zora Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Revision No. 354 of 1998,
Decided On : JANUARY 13, 2010
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted. (P.19)
(C) Criminal Jurisprudence--Cardinal fundamental principles--To be kept in focus while deciding criminal cases--Absolute onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt--Accused cannot possibly be convicted without any legal substantive evidence as the evidence is essential element in the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations alleged against the accused because criminal proceedings require strict proof of guilt--It is the evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the requirement of criminal justice--Otherwise, in the absence of the same, the courts have no option but to record an order of acquittal howsoever painful the same may be. (P.15)
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
1. Impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.1997 of the trial Court and judgment dated 14.2.1998 of lower appellate court, Zora Singh-petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as "petitioner") has directed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition and emanating from the record, as unfolded during the trial, is that on the fateful day of 12.11.1993, PW6 complainant Balkar singh alongwith his brother Nachhattar Singh (deceased) and PW8 Pal Singh were going on their respective bicycles to the premises of Pawan Tube, G. T. Road, mandi Gobindgar. As soon as, at about 5 P. M. , they reached near the gate of government Primary School (place of occurrence), in the meantime a bus bearing registration No. PB- 23-2551 (hereinafter to be referred as "the offending bus")belonging to Amloh Roadways, being driven by the petitioner, came from behind, in a rash and negligent manner. The driver could not control and rammed the offending bus into the bicycle of Nachhattar singh. The left tyre of the bus passed over his bicycle, as a result of which, he felled on the ground and sustained multiple grievous injuries. It was claimed that after the accident, the petitioner alighted from the bus, sukhwinder Singh, Conductor of the offending bus, helped PW6 and PW8 in removing the injured Nachhattar Singh to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in view of his serious condition. But on the way, Nachhattar Singh succumbed to his injuries. His dead body was then brought back to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. The doctor sent written information (Ex. PA) informing the police about the arrival of the injured in the hospital. Thereafter vide information (Ex. PB), doctor intimated the police with regard to the arrival of his dead body in the Civil Hospital, mandi Gobindgarh.
3. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on the next day, i. e. on 13.11.1993, police party headed by ASI Gurdial Singh (PW7) went to the place of accident and recorded the statement (Ex. PW6/a) of Balkar Singh (PW6), which was read over and explained to him and he (PW6) signed the same in token of its correctness. PW7 made his endorsement (Ex. PW7/a) on the statement and sent the same to the Police Station for the registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex. PW7/b) was recorded by MHC Satpal Singh. Thereafter, PW7 prepared the inquest report (Ex. PW5/a) of the dead body of Nachhattar Singh.
4. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner while driving the offending bus and caused the death of Nachhattar singh, not amounting to culpable homicide. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex. PW6/a) of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner vide FIR (Ex. PW7/b), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station mandi Gobindgarh, in the manner indicated here-in-above.
5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the commission of crime punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the trial Court.
6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner examined, PW1 Kuldeep Singh, who snapped the photographs (Ex. P6 to ex. P10) of the place of occurrence on 13.11.1993 vide negatives Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 and handed over to the police.
7. Pw2 Dr. Navjiwan Goyal sent the informations (ruqqas-Ex. PA and Ex. PB) to the police. PW3 Dr. Baljit Singh, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Nachhattar Singh vide post-mortem report Ex. PC on 13.11.1993 at about 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.