Harjit Singh @ Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana

Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. A.N.JINDAL, J: ***** The accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') was prosecuted for causing rash and negligent driving thereby killing one lady namely Santosh and injuring 7-8 persons, consequently, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. The appeal, preferred by him, was also dismissed on

15.03.2004. Factual matrix of the case is that on 16.05.1996 at 12:00 noon, Mehar Chand complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') alongwith his wife Ajmero Devi had gone to Mustafabad Bazar to purchase some articles. At about 4:30 p.m., on his return, he boarded the tonga of Singh Ram wherein 8-9 more passengers were also sitting. When Singh Ram alongwith the passengers reached near Saraswati Bridge, Ambala Road then the accused, while driving the tanker bearing registration No.UP-12-A-4235 rashly and negligently, struck against the Tonga. Resultantly, all the Criminal Revision No.837 of 2004 2 passengers suffered injuries and subsequently, Santosh died. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Singh Ram (PW1), complainant Mehar Chand (PW2), Ramesh Kumar (PW3), Dr.Rajiv Trehan (PW4), Kamlesh (PW5), Sub Inspector Luxmi Narain (PW6), Dr.D.K.Hansal (PW7), Amarjit Kaur (PW8), Gian Singh (PW9), Sher Singh (PW10) and Head Constable Dharamvir (PW11). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal, preferred by him also failed. Heard. Record perused. The prime argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is with regard to the doubtful identity of the accused. Having given my thoughtful consideration to this contention, the same was found to be without any merit. Though, Singh Ram (PW1) could not see the driver at the spot yet he does not deny the occurrence and states that he had come to know about the driver lateron. He may have stated so as he on account of the injuries suffered by him had lost the balance. Complainant Mehar Chand (PW2), who had not suffered any injury, has stated that he had seen the accused and he was the person, who had caused the accident. He also Criminal Revision No.837 of 2004 3 identified him in the Court. He further states that he had seen the accused driving the offending tanker. Despite the lengthy cross-examination conducted upon him, nothing could be illicited which may be sufficient to discredit his testimony. That apart, he has stated that the accused was apprehended after sometime by the police. The driving licence of the accused and the registration certificate were recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer. The argument that the accused was not arrested at the time of occurrence is without any merit. Had he not been arrested at the time of occurrence then his correct name and address could not have been known to the complainant. Further the recovery of the driving licence and the registration certificate also prove the identity of the accused and the accused has failed to explain as to how these two documents came into possession of the Investigating Officer at the time of occurrence. Thus, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of the Court to hold that it is not a case of mistaken identity. The other argument, raised by the counsel, is the non- examination of the investigating officer but the said argument also is devoid of any merit. The Investigating Officer was not the eye-witness to the occurrence. He may be a witness to some secondary evidence but the documents i.e. FIR, MLRs and recovery memos stand proved on the record by Sher Singh (PW10). The accused in this case has failed to shake the testimony of Mehar Chand (PW2), eye witness to the occurrence, therefore, in these circumstances, non-examination of the Investigating Officer pales into insignificance. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case Bahadur Naik Versus State of Bihar 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 217 (SC) wherein it was observed that investigating officer is of no consequence Criminal Revision No.837 of 2004 4 when defence failed to shake credibility of the witness or to point out any material contradictions in the prosecution case. Thus, in this situation, the non-examination of the investigating officer is of no consequence. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below indicting the accused for the commission of crime, as such reappreciation of evidence at this revisional stage is not permissible. The revisional powers of this Court are very restricted and interference could be made only if there was any serious illegality or infirmity in the judgment or manifest error apparent on the face of record, causing serious prejudice to the accused but no such defect or irregularity was pointed out or detected in the case. As such, this Court is hesitant to interfere in the impugned judgment. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence is of the year 1996; the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last fourteen years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then; he has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence; therefore, it is a fit case in which some reduction in the sentence could be made. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge

15.10.2010 mamta-II