Jagnandan Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Jagnandan Singh son of Hakik Singh was tried in case FIR No.224 dated 11.12.1995 registered at Police Station Sangrur under Sections 279/304-A IPC for causing death of Darshan Singh. The trial Court on 13th January, 1999, sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days imprisonment. Petitioner was further sentenced under Section 304-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed on 12th May, 2000. The appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. A peculiar feature of this case is that accused Jagnandan Singh died on 28th December, 2002 leaving behind Kulwinder Kaur widow Criminal Revision No.1195 of 2000 2 and two sons namely Daljit Singh and Kuldip Singh. Since Kulwinder Kaur was denied retiral benefits she filed an application to pursue the present revision petition. A Single Bench of this Court accepted the request on September 22, 2003. A perusal of the order shows that when the revision petition was entertained, by that time petitioner had already undergone his sentence, therefore, primarily for retrial benefits of Jagnandan Singh accused, his widow is pursuing the present revision petition. In the present case, FIR was lodged on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by Budh Ram before ASI Jasvir Singh on 11th December, 1995 at 11.45 a.m. at Civil Hospital, Sangrur. In the statement, Budh Ram stated that he is resident of village Badrukha and vendor of various goods and same are sold by him by going in village to village on bicycle. Darshan Singh was also engaged in the same business. On 11th December, 1995 at about 9.00 a.m. both complainant Budh Ram and Darshan Singh were going together on their bicycles on road little ahead of Gurdwara Mastuana. Darshan Singh was going on bicycle about 30/40 steps ahead. When they reached in front of the Haweli of Shiv Charan Dass, then from the Sangrur side, one bus bearing registration No.PB 12A-9822 came at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit Darshan Singh. Complainant along with one Ruldu Ram, who was present at the spot, brought Darshan Singh to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where on reaching Darshan Singh was declared dead. Bicycle of Darshan Singh was also broken in the accident. The bus driver after going little ahead, stopped the bus and ran away from the spot. The name of the bus driver was lateron learnt as Jagnandan Singh son of Hakik Singh. A grievance was made that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Criminal Revision No.1195 of 2000 3 The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Charge under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was framed against the accused petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Lakhvir Singh as PW-1. He had identified the dead body of Darshan Singh in Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Hasan Singh PW-2 was brother of deceased Darshan Singh. He had also identified the dead body of Darshan Singh. Budh Ram complainant appeared as PW-3. He reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. He also stated that at the spot, he later on learnt the name of the accused as Jagnandan Singh. From a perusal of the statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered, and statement of Budh Ram in Court, it is evident that the name of the accused was later on learnt as Jagnandan Singh. Ruldu Ram PW-4 corroborated the testimony of PW-3 Budh Ram. He further stated that the accused had stopped the bus at a distance of about 100 yards. Sunil Kakra PW-5 had proved the photographs of the spot. ASI Jasvir Singh appeared as PW-6. He had recorded the statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. This witness proved various facets of the investigation. Dr. Parbhat Kumar PW-7 on 11th December, 1995 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Darshan Singh. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. The accused denied them and pleaded not guilty. Criminal Revision No.1195 of 2000 4 In defence, Kulwant Singh Duty Inspector, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar was examined as DW-1. He stated that on 11th December, 1995, petitioner was not posted as driver of the bus. Dalip Singh was examined as DW-2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, accused driver of the bus, Jagnandan Singh was not known to the witnesses. In the FIR, it was only stated that accused had disclosed his name. As to when and why the accused disclosed his name, no evidence is forthcoming. The prosecution had not examined any witness from the Punjab Roadways, which is a Department of the Punjab Government, to say that the petitioner on the day of occurrence was assigned duty to operate the offending bus. Rather, accused in defence had produced DW- 1 Kulwant Singh, Duty Inspector, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar to say that petitioner was not posted at the bus which had caused the accident. DW-2 Dalip Singh also specifically stated that he had traveled in the bus bearing regn. No. PB-12A-9822 and no accident had taken place. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove and establish the identity of the driver of the offending bus. In the present case, no test identification parade was held. The witnesses have also not divulged the features or mark of identification in the FIR or in any statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner being a solitary accused was first time identified when he was standing in the Dock. The story that accused after stopping the bus came to the witnesses, disclosed his name and went away, seems improbable, unnatural and is not convincing. Therefore, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove that petitioner had caused any accident. Hence, present revision petition is accepted, conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court and affirmed by Criminal Revision No.1195 of 2000 5 the lower appellate Court is set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charges. February 23, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE