CRR-667-2015

1

2023:PHHC:105851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-667-2015

Date of decision : 16.08.2023

Balkar Singh

...... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and another

...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:

Mr. Lavish Arora, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Iqbaldeep Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Complainant is in revision against the order passed by

Appellate Court whereby the accused-respondent No.2 has been ordered

to be acquitted accepting the appeal preferred by him setting aside

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2013 passed

by the trial Court.

2.

Respondent was booked in FIR No.157 dated 08.12.2009,

registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC qua an

incident wherein Dogar Singh lost his life in a motor vehicle accident

alleged to have been caused by some vehicle. It was claimed that Head

Constable Jarnail Singh during investigation found three broken pieces

of number plate alleged to be of offending vehicle. On joining the

pieces, number of vehicle was found to be PB05 N-9288. Trial Court

relied upon testimony of PW-1 Balkar Singh-the complainant and

DINESH KUMAR

2023.08.22 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-667-2015

2

2023:PHHC:105851

Gurwinder Singh PW-2 and convicted respondent No.2 for offence

punishable under Section 304-A IPC and awarded him a sentence of

R.I. for 02 years with fine Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to

further undergo S.I. for one month.

3.

In the appeal preferred by respondent No.2, Appellate

Court found that it is an admitted case of prosecution that neither Balkar

Singh PW-1 nor Gurwinder Sigh PW-2 is eye witness to the accident

and thus reliance thereupon by the trial Court to hold accused guilty

was not sustainable. It has been further found by the Appellate Court

that from broken pieces of the number plate, the offending vehicle can

be ascertained but not the driver. It has further come on record that on

verification, DTO Ferozepur informed the prosecution that the vehicle

No.PB05 N-9288 was registered under the ownership of Chhinderpal

Singh. Admittedly, Chhinderpal Singh has not been examined by the

prosecution.

4.

In view of above, Appellate Court found that prosecution

failed to prove beyond doubt that respondent No.2 was driving the

offending vehicle and thus cannot be held guilty of offence punishable

under Section 304-A IPC and acquitted him.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that neither of

PW-1 and PW-2 was the eye witness to the accident nor does he deny

that the involvement of vehicle bearing registration No.PB05 N-9288

cannot drive home guilt against respondent No.2-accused.

6.

In view of above, this Court does not find that the

Appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgment passed by the trial

Court or erred in law while acquitting the respondent which would

DINESH KUMAR

2023.08.22 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-667-2015

3

2023:PHHC:105851

warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

16.08.2023

Dinesh

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes

Whether Reportable :

No

DINESH KUMAR

2023.08.22 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document