Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl. Appeal-S No.1213-SB of 2003
Madan
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 27/09/2013}
For the Appellant:Mr. Jay Prakash Jangu, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State:Mr. Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A--Death by Negligence--There should be acceptable evidence that the incident had occurred entirely or mainly due to rashness or negligence of the appellant and not otherwise. (Para 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A--Death by Negligence--The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences--The criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury to an individual, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. (Para 17)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A--Death by Negligence--Acquittal--Case of prosecution that appellant and other co-accused caused injuries culminating into death of deceased--Defence version that due to heavy drinking deceased fell between tractor and trolley while sitting on trolley--Trial Court disbelieved defence version and acquitted co-accused but convicted petitioner should not have allowed the deceased to sit in the tractor--Held; It was nobody's case that petitioner was driving in negligent manner--Trial Judge has convicted the appellant entirely on unfounded and speculative grounds--Accused acquitted.
Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- 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 29.05.2001 at about 5.00AM, Suresh(deceased), brother of complainant-Rattan Kumar(PW1) son of Balwan Singh had gone with appellant-convict Madan son of Desh Raj and acquitted coaccused Rohtas son of Chote Lal, on his(appellant’s) tractor-trolley bearing Registration No.HR-12A-0526, for selling Millet(fodder)(Jawar) at Rohtak. At about 1.30 PM, they brought Suresh in an injured and unconscious condition to his house. The liquor smell was coming out of their mouths. The complainant asked them to remove his brother Suresh to the hospital, but they went away. Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother Baljeet brought Suresh to the Civil Hospital, Dighal, from where he was referred to PGI Rohtak. As luck would have been, he expired on the way and his dead-body was brought to the village. The matter was reported to the police. After post-mortem examination of his dead-body, the complainant developed suspicion regarding the cause of death of his brother. Subsequently, he came to know that in fact a quarrel had taken place between Suresh and the accused, at a place near Irrigation Minor, falling within the area of Dighal. Appellant-Madan and his other co-accused Rohtas were stated to have caused injuries to him.
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the complainant claimed that on 29.05.2001, his brother Suresh had died on account of injuries, caused by the appellant and his other co-accused, culminating into his death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint(Ex.PA) of complainant- Rattan Kumar, the present case was registered against the appellant and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.113 dated 31.05.2001, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, in the manner described here-in-above.
3. After completion of the investigation, final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against them to face the trial for the pointed offences.
4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellant and his other co-accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences, in question. As, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court.
5. Sequelly, the prosecution in order to substantiate the commission of crime against the appellant, has mainly relied upon the statement of eye-witness PW5-Naresh Kumar, who has deposed in the following terms:-
“On 29.5.2001 at about 12.00 Noon, I was going to Rohtak on scooter and on the way near Dighal Canal, accused Rohtas and Madan were beating Suresh. Madan was carrying lathi in his hand and Rohtas was carrying handle of hand pump in his hand and both were beating Suresh and caused injuries to Suresh. Tractor of Madan was also parked nearby. I intervened and rescued Suresh from the clutches of accused. Suresh received injuries on his head and Madan gave a lathi blow to Suresh on his hand. Rohtas caused injuries to Suresh with the help of iron handle of hand pump in his head. I separated them and advised them to take the injured to hospital and then I went to Rohtak on my scooter. On the same day, in evening, I received telephonic message that Suresh has died. On 31.5.2001, police recorded my statement.”
6. Likewise, complainant PW1-Rattan Kumar has also supported the prosecution version. Instead of reproducing his entire statement and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that he has corroborated the contents, contained in his initial statement(Ex.PA), which formed the basis of FIR(Ex.PC).
7. Now adverting to the medical evidence, PW
