Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Sukhbir Singh - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRR No.1281 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Presumption - Rash and Negligent Driving - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for a road accident resulting in death and injuries. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the registration details of the offending car.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending car at the time of the accident. It noted inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses and discrepancies in the site plan, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was based on assumption and presumption.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the accused as the driver, the reliability of witness testimony, and the accuracy of the site plan presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the importance of reliable evidence and the need to corroborate witness testimony with concrete facts.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the petitioner of all charges.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
In criminal case No.58 of 2015 arising out of FIR No.145 dated 17.03.2014 registered at Police Station Assandh (Karnal), petitioner was convicted by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Assandh vide judgment dated 29.11.2016 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Vide separate order dated 30.11.2016, he has been sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of one year for committing the offence under Section 304-A IPC besides fine of ?7,500/- apart from default sentence. He has also been sentenced for committing the offences under Section 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Against the said judgment of conviction of sentence, petitioner had filed appeal before Learned Sessions Judge, Karnal but said criminal appeal No.147 of 2018 (CNR No.HRKR01-010076-2016) has been dismissed vide judgment dated 17.05.2019.
2. Against the above-said judgments of conviction and dismissal of the appeal, this revision has been filed.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.03.2014, on the day of Holi Festival, Azad (PW-9) and Sanjeev on one motorcycle; and Ashok (PW-8), Mohan and Raj Rani (PW-10) on separate motorcycle were going to Kalayat from Assandh side towards Rajaund side. The motorcycle going ahead was being driven by Azad; whereas motorcycle following them was being driven by Ashok. Mohan (since deceased) was pillion rider on the motorcycle being driven by Ashok along with Rajrani. As they reached near Dera Teja Singh Sohal on Assandh-Rajaund road, offending car came from the opposite side being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of Ashok, who along with Mohan fell down in the nearby pit, whereas Raj Rani fell on the other side of the road. The car then hit a kikar tree. The said car was being driven by a young boy and its registration number was noted to be HR-99SHHQTP-1532. After talking to Sanjeev for sometime, driver of the car fled away. Injured were taken to the hospital but Mohan succumbed to the injuries at Government Hospital Assandh. FIR was registered on the statement of Azad. Investigation was carried out and challan was presented. After trial, accused Sukhbir Singh was held to be guilty and conviction was recorded as per the details given earlier. His appeal against conviction was dismissed.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below fell in error in recording conviction on the basis of assumption and presumption. The infirmities in the testimony of witnesses have been ignored, as none of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution proved rash or negligent driving of the car driver. Identity of the petitioner as car driver is not established. No test identification parade was conducted. The location of the vehicles shown in the site plan does not support the prosecution version. Site plan does not depict any kicker tree to which the car struck after causing accident nor any pit is shown wherein the injured had fallen down. It is also urged that photographs of the offending car taken from the spot would clearly reflect the damage on the real portion and so, the accident could not have been caused in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. With these submissions prayer is made for setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence.
5. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is urged by Learned State counsel that there is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below, which are based on evidence on record.
6. Having considered submissions of both the sides, I find merit in this revision.
7. PW-8 Ashok Kumar (injured), PW-9 Azad (author of the FIR) and PW-10 Raj Rani (injured) have been examined by the prosecution to prove the manner of accident. All of them are consistent in their testimony that when the two motorcycles were going towards Rajaund side, the offending car came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of Ashok resulting i
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and witness testimony should be corroborated with concrete evidence.
The central legal point established is that the identity of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving criminal lia....
The court upheld convictions based on eyewitness testimony, affirming that identity can be established without a test identification parade.
The judgment underscores the importance of reliable identification evidence in criminal convictions, particularly when based on witness testimony.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care and precaution on public roads, and the prosecution's burden to prove rash and negligent driving i....
Negligence in driving leading to fatality can be established without a test identification parade if the identity is corroborated by credible witnesses.
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, establishing that the accused's recklessness was the primary cause of the victim's fatal injuries.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
