Criminal Revision No. 1177 of 2000 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

as accused in case FIR No.403 dated 03.11.1990 registered at Police Station Butana under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Karnal, vide its judgment and order dated 21st May, 1999, found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, petitioner was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner was also sentenced under Section 304-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to Criminal Revision No. 1177 of 2000 2 run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 18th September, 2000. In the present case, the FIR was lodged by Manmohan Singh PW-6. Manmohan Singh made a statement Ex.PA/6, in which he stated that he was resident of Samana Bahu. His daughter Navdeep Kaur was a student of Convent School at Karnal. On 3rd November, 1990 at about 8.15 in the morning, his daughter Navdeep Kaur along with other children of the School had left village Samana Bahu in a Van bearing registration No.HR07-1199 towards Karnal. At about 9.00 in the morning, it was learnt that the Van, in which they were traveling, had met with an accident. Learning this, Manmohan Singh complainant on his scooter reached at the place of accident and found that the accident had taken place with a Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No.HR29-6570. This bus belonged to Faridabad Depot. It was stated in the FIR that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In the accident his daughter Navdeep Kaur and one Charanpreet Singh had expired. The other children, who were injured, were taken to the hospital before the complainant reached at the spot. It was stated that the driver of the bus ran away from the spot. A grievance was made that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, therefore, legal action be taken. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Prosecution examined HC Hirdey Ram as PW-1. He stated that on 6th November, 1990, the accused driver Raghbir Singh had produced his driving licence and registration certificate of the bus. Both the documents were taken into possession vide separate possession memos Ex.PA and PB respectively. Criminal Revision No. 1177 of 2000 3 Kanwarjit Singh PW-2 stated that on 3rd November, 1990, an accident of Van and bus had taken place. The van was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC and the bus vide recovery memo Ex.PD. Dr.Sushil Kumar Bhatia PW-3 had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Charanpreet Singh and Navdeep Kaur on 3rd November, 1990 and held that the injuries suffered in the accident were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. HC Gopi Ram PW-4 had conducted mechanical test of the bus and had submitted his report Ex.PW4/A. Varsala PW-5 was a schoolmate of the deceased. She stated that the bus bearing registration No. HR29-6570 was going from Karnal side to Chandigarh. The bus was at a very high speed and it hit the Van, in which she was traveling. However, this witness further stated that she had seen the driver, therefore, she remembered his face. This witness further stated that she was sitting on the last seat of the Van and after the accident had taken place, she had seen the number of the bus. Manmohan Singh complainant appeared as PW-6. He was not an eye witness of the occurrence, but he received the information regarding the accident at his village. This witness stated that the bus driver had decamped from the spot and he had not seen the driver of the bus at the spot. Roshan Lal PW-7 was the driver of the Van. He stated that after the accident had taken place, he had seen the bus driver alighting from the bus and after the accident, many vehicles halted at the spot. This witness further stated that after the accident, he had seen the accused driver first time in claim case and second time in the Court. Wazir Chand PW-8 had proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P7 and the negatives Ex.P8 to P14. Criminal Revision No. 1177 of 2000 4 Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. Two questions are required to be determined by this Court, (a) whether the identity of the petitioner stands established from the prosecution evidence? and (b) whether the vehicle was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner? Varsala PW-5 was a passenger of the Van. Her name was not mentioned in the FIR. She had not narrated to the author of the FIR, the fact that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the FIR, the complainant at his own had laid the pattern of the version that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. What was his source of information, nothing has come on record. When the accident had taken place, many vehicles halted at the spot. Many drivers came out of their vehicles. How the witness came to know that the accused, who was standing in the dock, was the driver of the bus. It is in these circumstances, the Court has always held that the identification of the accused in the dock is a weak type of evidence. Therefore, to corroborate the same, a test identification parade ought to be held by the prosecution. True that the identification of the accused in the Court is a substantive piece of evidence, but in certain circumstances, the Court will always be put on the guard to seek corroboration. The test identification parade is one such corroboration. The prosecution has not examined any official of the Haryana Roadways to say that the petitioner was employed and posted as driver of the bus, which had caused the accident. No appointment letter or duty roster has been placed on record. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused. Criminal Revision No. 1177 of 2000 5 Roshan Lal PW-7 was the driver of the Van. He was under compulsion to say that it was the other vehicle, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The tendency on the part of the driver of one vehicle to absolve himself and incriminate the driver of the other vehicle cannot be ruled out. Varsala PW-5 was a passenger of the Van, who was sitting on the last seat. Being a daily passenger of the Van, she will also be the one, who will depose in favour of the driver of the Van. No independent witness was examined. Furthermore, to determine as to whether the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine a draftsman, who would have prepared the scaled site plan. In the present case, the Investigating Officer was also not examined. He could have also provided assistance to the Court regarding visual observation. In view of the circumstances enumerated above, this Court is of the view that as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, present revision petition is accepted, the judgments of both the courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. March 3, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE