Lajja Ram v. State of Haryana

Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 8.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Lajja Ram (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 7.1.1999, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- under Section 279 IPC; and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. However, during the appeal the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC. On 24.4.1990, the complainant Mange Ram (herein referred as 'the complainant') informed ASI Jagan Nath that on 20.4.1990 he along with Ravinder Singh had gone to meet his younger brother Sham Lal at Yamuna Nagar when he along with Ravinder Singh and Sham Lal were returning to their village, at about 6.30 p.m. when they reached near the turning of village Mandauli, then the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.HPA-1584, rashly and negligently came from the side of Saharanpur and struck the same against the cycle of Sham Lal. Consequently he fell down and sustained multiple injuries. The truck also went out side the road and turned turtle into ditches. The accused came out of the truck to see Sham Lal and at that time he disclosed his name as Lajja Ram. On the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.26 of 1990 was Criminal Revision No. 2233 of 2002 -2- *** registered against the accused. Site plan was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, photographs of the place of accident were taken, the vehicle i.e. cycle as well as the truck were taken into possession. Eventually report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Mange Ram (PW1), Ravinder Singh (PW2), HC Satbir Singh (PW3), Hawa Singh (PW4), Dr. Mahavir Goel (PW5) and Bhim Sen Photographer (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. While opening the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner though admitted that when there are concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding the guilt of the accused, then the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very limited, but he has urged with vehemence that the identity of the accused is not proved. In this connection it may be observed that both the witnesses have stated that after hitting the bicycle, the truck went off the road and fell into ditches. The accused came out after alighting from the truck and disclosed his name as Lajja Ram, therefore, since the witnesses had the occasion and opportunity to see the accused, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. As regards the rashness of the accused is concerned, the truck after hitting the cycle went off the road and fell into ditches and turned turtle. The photographs Ex.PW6/1, Ex.PW6/3 to Ex.PW6/5 reveal that the truck after hitting the bicycle had fallen down. The question of disputed identity of the truck also does not arise as number of the fallen truck is correctly recorded as HPA-1584 as revealed from the photographs aforesaid. Further more, in order to connect the accused with the crime, a copy of the challan recovered from the truck of the accused indicates that he was the truck driver. His signatures figure over challan report as driver. The accused has not examined any person to prove that some body else than the Criminal Revision No. 2233 of 2002 -3- *** accused was working as driver on the offending truck. The other legal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case, therefore, on account of non proof of material documents on the record to connect the accused with crime, the benefit should be extended to him. Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered in case Thana Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 678, wherein it was observed that non examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal for the reasons that all the material documents remained unproved. Having perused the judgment same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The trial court has also distinguished the aforesaid judgment. In that case, only one witness was examined but in the present case two material eye witnesses were examined. That apart, the mechanical report and the photographs were also proved. The Investigating Officer is not an eye witness to the occurrence to disclose the place of occurrence, but these are the eye witnesses who could disclose about the same. The witnesses have categorically stated in their statements that the occurrence took place on the turning of village Mandauli. The photographs corroborate this fact. Thus, all the material documents as well as the place of accident stand fully established. It is only in those cases, the testimony of the Investigating Officer is material when the material evidence to connect the accused with the crime could not be proved. Here in this case, the Investigating Officer could not be examined for the reason that he had died during trial. Any way, material documents were proved except the site plan obviously for proving the skid marks or the manner of accident but the instant case is quite on different footings. In this case the accused after striking against the bicycle had fallen into ditches which speaks for itself that the truck driver was driving so rashly that he could not control the same and that after striking the bicycle fell into ditches. The Apex Court while dispensing with the non examination of the Investigating Officer in such cases observed in case Nagarjit Ahir vs. State of Bihar, 2005 (2) RCR (Crl.) 25 as under :- Criminal Revision No. 2233 of 2002 -4- *** “......... In this connection we may also notice that submission urged on behalf of the appellants that the investigating officer was not available to give evidence in this case since he had died. We, however, do not find that the appellants were in any manner prejudiced by his non examination. The evidence is consistent and the place of occurrence stands established by the clear evidence of the eye witnesses which has not been impeached in their cross examination. Here in this case also both the witnesses of the occurrence stood the test of reliability and credibility with regard to time, place and the manner of the occurrence. The FIR is prompt one. The place of occurrence stands established. The offending vehicle was taken into possession from the spot. The case is not of mistaken identity. The photographs and the mechanical defects of the offending vehicle were also proved by the documentary evidence. As such, in the present case non examination of the Investigating Officer does not cause any prejudice to the accused. I also do not find any substance in the argument for reduction of sentence as the ruthless drivers by mishandling the vehicles take the lives of the people going by the road side with in twinkling of an eye and damage the property worth of lacs of rupees of the owners for want of their proper training, experience or rashness. As such, they do not deserve any such leniency on the quantum of sentence. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. February 23, 2010 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge