IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of reliable identification evidence in criminal convictions, particularly when based on witness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Gupta, J.) :

Petitioner was tried by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, in a case arising out of FIR No.07 dated 13.01.2015, under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station City Kharar, in criminal case bearing No.PBSAA1-000201-2015. Vide judgment dated 21.02.2017, petitioner was held to be guilty for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and convicted thereunder accordingly. Vide a separate order of even date, he was sentenced as under:-

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. In appeal [CNR N: PBSA01-001581-2017] against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned Addl. Sessoins Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, maintained the conviction vide judgment dated 22.11.2023, though reduced the substantive sentence to 01 year.

3. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of conviction as recorded by the Court below, this revision has been filed.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, inasmuch as identity of the petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle, was not at all established. Learned counsel points out that in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that when Daljinder Singh alongwith Gurpreet Singh reached the spot, by that time the driver had fled away from the spot. Learned counsel points out further that there is nothing in the FIR to show that complainant – Daljinder Singh was able to see the face of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel contends that in these circumstances, statement of PW3 – Daljinder Singh during trial, identifying the petitioner to be the driver of the offending vehicle, is not believable in the absence of any test identification parade. Attention is further drawn towards the testimony of PW4 – Gurpreet Singh, who improved his statement during trial by stating that he had seen the driver, when he was alighting from the same after causing the accident, but nothing to this effect was stated by him in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, to which he was duly confronted. Learned counsel contends that the only other evidence with the prosecution was the statement of PW7 – Karnail Singh, the owner of the offending vehicle, who had allegedly produced the petitioner before the Investigating Officer, but said PW7 – Karnail Singh did not support the prosecution version during trial. It is urged that in all these facts and circumstances, the identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle, was not at all established and so, he has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court and his conviction has been wrongly maintained by the Appellate Court.

5. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting that Ld. Courts below have discussed the evidence produced by the prosecution at length and rightly came to the conclusion that it is the petitioner-accused, who was driving the offending vehicle.

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the Trial Court record as available on the Document Management System (DMS) of this Court.

7.1 FIR (Annexure P-1) was lodged on the statement of Daljinder Singh (examined as PW 3 during trial), as per which on 13.01.2015, his father Parminder Singh (deceased) had left on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12N-1455 for his work at village Dau; whereas he (Daljinder Singh) alongwith Gurpreet Singh (examined as PW 4 during trial) was behind him on a separate motorcycle and going for some work at Mohali. As they reached near Bansa Wali Chungi, his father while driving his motorcycle was going ahea