Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
State of Punjab - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Gurdev Singh - Respondent - Respondent
CRA-S-2456-SBA of 2006
Decided On : 11-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the respondent

The necessity of a test identification parade and the parameters for entertaining an appeal against an order of acquittal.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Indian Penal Code - Section 337, 338, 427, 304-A - The court discussed the failure of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the necessity of a test identification parade, and the parameters for entertaining an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:

The State of Punjab appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges under Section 337, 338, 427, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on an accident involving a Swaraj Mazda Canter and the resulting injuries and death of the victims.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized the necessity of a test identification parade and upheld the well-reasoned findings of the trial court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, the necessity of a test identification parade, and the parameters for entertaining an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of a test identification parade when the accused was not known to any witness and discussed the parameters for entertaining an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of acquittal by the trial court.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. The State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal before this Court, challenging the judgment dated 16.12.2005, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, whereby, the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Section 337, 338, 427 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The learned trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and by extending the benefit of doubt, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 09.08.2002, ASI Surinder Pal received a ruqa from PHC, Bhawanigarh regarding the admission of two injured, namely, Binder Singh and Ramesh Kumar S/o Tej Ram and on getting the information, ASI Surinder Pal along with other police officials reached PHC, Bhawanigarh. He sought an opinion regarding the fitness of the injured to make the statement and it was found that both the injured had been referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment, keeping in view their critical condition. ASI Surinder Pal visited Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and sought an opinion with regard to fitness of the injured. Injured Ramesh Kumar was declared fit to make a statement and accordingly, his statement was recorded. Ramesh Kumar, injured/complainant stated that on 09.08.2002, he along with Binder Singh and Ruldu Singh, all residents of Mansa were returning after paying obeisance at Naina Devi Temple, on their respective bicycles. When they reached near octroi Post, Sunam Road, Bhwanigarh at about 8.00 am on 09.08.2002, a Swaraj Mazda Canter bearing registration No. HR-38A-7886 came, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn, it had run over Binder Singh and his bicycle. Due to said accident, Binder Singh received multiple injuries on his person and his bicycle was entangled in Swaraj Mazda. Even the complainant received injuries on his right shoulder, right elbow, right hand and he also fell down from his bicycle. His bicycle and the bicycle of Binder Singh were extensively damaged. He also stated that Ruldu Singh did not suffer any injury in the accident and had witnessed the occurrence. Even the driver of Swaraj Mazda fled away from the spot after leaving the vehicle. Ruldu Singh got the complainant admitted in Civil Hospital, Bhawanigarh however, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment. His companion Binder Singh died, while he was being shifted to hospital and the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. HR-38A-7886.

3. After necessary investigation, the challan under Sections 304-A, 337, 338, 427 of IPC was presented in the Court against the accused. After finding sufficient evidence to frame charge, the accused was ordered to be charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 337, 338, 427 of IPC and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The prosecution examined Ramesh Kumar as PW-1, who had witnessed the occurrence. He supported the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the FIR. Ruldu Singh, PW-2 was the eyewitness of the occurrence and even he had supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused. He further stated that the vehicle had hit Ramesh Kumar, who fell down and suffered the injuries. Binder Singh also received injuries on his head, elbow and right shoulder and succumbed to the injuries finally. He further stated that the said Swaraj Mazda i.e. the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused, who was present in the Court. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused. The prosecution examined PW-4 HC Avtar Singh, who was the mechanic and had conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document