Criminal Revision No.843 of 1995

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.843 of 1995

Date of decision: March 04, 2008

Nirmal Singh alias Pappu

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

… Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:

Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for

the State.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)

Nirmal Singh alias Pappu son of Sohan Singh was tried in

case FIR No.413 dated 12.09.1988 registered at Police Station,

Fatehabad under Section 279/304-A IPC. He was convicted by the Court

of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad under Section 279/304-A

IPC to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of

payment, it was ordered that he shall undergo RI for three months.

Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal and the same

was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

The case of prosecution is that on 11^th September, 1988

petitioner, due to rash and negligent driving of a tractor bearing No.HRB-

7387, caused the death of Gurmej Singh in village Ahli Sadar. FIR was

lodged at the instance of Joginder Singh (complainant) PW-4, who had

Criminal Revision No.843 of 1995

2

stated that on 11^th September, 1988, at about 7-7.30 p.m he along with

Gurmej Singh son of Surta Singh was coming to Fatehabad from village

Ahli Sadar on a motorcycle bearing No.PNC-8264. It is stated that when

they reached near the tubewell of one Sh.Dev Raj, then petitioner, who

was driving a Ford tractor, due to his rash and negligent driving struck

against the motorcycle, due to which complainant and Gurmej Singh fell

from the motorcycle and Gurmej Singh, the pillion rider received injuries at

his neck. It is further stated that due to injuries, Gurmej Singh died. It is

further stated that the accident was witnesses by Jagir Singh son of

Maghar Singh, who has appeared as PW-3.

Prosecution examined Sham Lal Mechanic as PW-1; Dr.P.L.

Verma, who conducted the autopsy, as PW-2; Jagir Singh PW-3; Joginder

Singh complainant PW-4 and Joginder Singh son of Gurmej Singh as PW-

5. The record further reveals that Jagir Singh had not supported the

prosecution case. PW-5 Joginder Singh son of Gurmej Singh was a

witness of formal nature.

In both the courts below, testimony of Joginder Singh PW-4,

complainant, has been assailed that he being a solitary witness cannot be

relied. It has been further urged before the courts below that prosecution

has failed to establish the identity of the petitioner. It is further stated that

in the present case, investigating officer was not examined. There was

nothing on the record, from which visual observations of the site could

have been brought to the notice of the courts.

Both the courts below have relied upon the testimony of

Joginder Singh PW-4 and held him to be a trustworthy witness. The

Courts have believed that he was driving the motorcycle, on which Gurmej

Singh was a pillion rider and due to the accident caused by the tractor of

the petitioner, occurrence has taken place. Findings of fact have been

returned by the two courts below.

Criminal Revision No.843 of 1995

3

At this stage, Mr.Sudhir Sharma appearing for the petitioner

states that he will not be able to satisfy this Court and will not assail his

conviction in case this Court grants benefit of protracted trial to the

petitioner. It has been stated that in the present case, occurrence has

taken place on 11^th September, 1988. A period of 19 years is going to

elapse. It is stated that the petitioner is sole bread earner of his family and

in the last 19 years he has not committed any other offence. Petitioner

was taken into custody on 13^th October, 1995 and was ordered to be

released on bail by this Court on 23^rd November, 1995 and in this way, the

petitioner has underg