Jaskaran Singh vs State of UT Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MR DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Jaskaran Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh & Anr. – Respondents
CRR-1549 of 2019
Decided On : 23-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. P.P., UT, Chandigarh.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Conviction of bus driver for causing death by negligence - The conviction was based solely on the statement of a police constable, which was found unreliable when compared to circumstantial evidence and site plan - No independent eyewitness was examined, and key witness Ankush was absent from prosecution - Reliance on a sole witness without corroborating evidence is insufficient for sustaining a conviction. (Paras 3-9)

(B) Standards for Conviction - A conviction must be supported by reliable evidence and corroborated by independent witnesses. A mere possibility suggested by a witness is not adequate if it contradicts other evidence. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for causing a fatal accident involving a bus and a motorcycle. The victim, seated on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, died following the collision. The trial court's judgment was based solely on the statement of a police constable. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the testimony of the police constable unreliable when reviewed against the site plan and photographs of the accident. It highlighted the absence of independent witnesses and the key motorcycle driver from the prosecution, leading to the conclusion that the conviction could not be upheld. (Paras 6-9)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the conviction based on the police constable's sole testimony, which was inconsistent with other evidence, could be sustained. (Paras 3, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction cannot rely solely on potentially contradictory witness testimony without additional corroborating evidence, especially in cases of serious charges such as causing death by negligence. (Paras 9-10)

Result: Revision petition is allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. circumstances leading to the criminal conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by both parties regarding evidence. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's examination of evidence and witness reliability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
4. established precedent on negligence in similar accidents. (Para 11)
5. reversal of conviction based on evidence analysis. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Mr Deepak Gupta, J.

In a criminal trial arising out of FIR No.85 dated 07.02.2008 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, petitioner Jaskaran Singh was convicted under Section s 279 and 304A IPC by the Court of ld. JMIC, Chandigarh in case bearing Police Challan Registration No.8878/2013 (CNR No.CHCH03-001467-2008) vide judgment dated 24.08.2017. Vide separate order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year besides payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- with default sentence under Section 304A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No.574/2017 filed by the petitioner against the afore-said judgment of conviction & order of sentence was dismissed on 04.06.2019 by ld. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, maintaining the conviction as well as sentence.

2. It is against the aforesaid concurrent conviction and sentence that petitioner has approached this Court by filing present revision petition.

3.(i) As per prosecution allegations, on 07.02.2008, information was received at Police Station Sector 39 Chandigarh regarding a road traffic accident at small chowk of Sector 39-40. SI Dalip Rattan reached the spot and was informed that two injured had been taken in police vehicle to the hospital. Head Constable Sukhchain produced the bus driver Jaskaran Singh (petitioner). The two vehicles involved in the accident i.e. Bus No.CH-01- G-5206 of CTU and motorcycle No.DL-3S-BA-0601 were taken into possession. Photographs of the spot were taken. After collecting necessary information, police reached the hospital, where both the injured namely Ankush son of Raj Kumar and Neetu d/o Gopi Chand were found to be unfit for making statement.

(ii) However, Constable Randeep Singh Rana approached SI Dalip Rattan and got recorded his statement, as per which on that day he was on duty in beat of Sector 40. He was proceeding towards rehri market Sector 40 and at about 10:40 AM, he was 20 yards behind the chowk, when a motorcycle on which a girl was a pillion, crossed him and was moving towards the chowk, when CTU bus coming from side of Shahpur chowk (road dividing Sector 39 and 40) being driven in rash and negligent manner, came and hit the motorcycle. Both the persons riding on the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries and they were taken to the hospital in police vehicle. FIR was registered.

(iii) Injured Neetu succumbed to the injuries on 12.02.2008. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Necessary investigation was conducted and challan was presented in the Court.

(iv) The accused-petitioner (Jaskaran Singh) was charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC by the Court, who pleaded not guilt to the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution led its evidence. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. controverted the incriminating material appearing in the evidence against him and pleaded false implication. However, no defence was adduced by him. After hearing both the sides, conviction was recorded by the trial Court and the petitioner was sentenced, as per the details given earlier and his appeal was dismissed.

4.(i) It is contended by ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner that he does not dispute the factum of accident or the fact that accident was caused between CTU bus No.CH-01-G-5206 and motorcycle No.DL-3S- BA-0601; that the bus was being driven by the petitioner at the relevant time and that the accident resulted into the death of pillion rider of the motorc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document