O&M) Anokh Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh and another U.T. Chandigarh and another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 248 CRR-904- Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Date of decision: -2019(O&M) Anokh Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS U.T. Chandigarh and another U.T. Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. or the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Viren Sibal, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Viren Sibal, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Viren Sibal, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for U.T. Chandigarh. for U.T. Chandigarh. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** revision petition has been preferred against the acquittal of This revision petition has been preferred against the acquittal of This respondent-accused/Supinder Singh by the accused/Supinder Singh by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Judicial Magistrate First Class, 20.01.2017 in case FIR No.477 dated Chandigarh vide judgment dated 20.01.2017 in case FIR No.477 dated Chandigarh vide judgment date 20.09.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal 20.09.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304 20.09.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304 Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and the subsequent at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh and the subsequent dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 15.04.2017 by the Court of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 15.04.2017 by the Court of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 15.04.2017 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 2. the version of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2013, on Briefly, the version of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2013, on Briefly receipt of a wireless message regarding an accident having taken place near receipt of a wireless message regarding an accident receipt of a wireless message regarding an accident the roundabout of Sector 55/56 and 39/40, the officials arrived at the spot the roundabout of Sector 55/56 and 39/40, the official the roundabout of Sector 55/56 and 39/40, the official where they found an accidented vehicle and a b where they found an accident vehicle and a bumper of the offending vehicle (tractor) bearing Registration No. PB-11-F-1553. By then, the vehicle (tractor) bearing Registration No. PB vehicle (tractor) bearing Registration No. PB already been shifted to General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh, already been shifted to General Hospital, Sector injured had already been shifted to General Hospital, Sector MER, Chandigarh. Since the injured was wherefrom he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh. Since the injured was wherefrom he was to make a statement, hence, the police officials came back to declared unfit to make a statement, hence, the police officials came back to to make a statement, hence, the police officials came back to the spot where they met a person named Sameem, who got his statement the spot where they met a person named Sameem, who got his statement the spot where they met a person named Sameem, who got his statement SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 2 recorded to the effect that at the time of the accident, the tractor trolley recorded to the effect that at the time of the accident, the tractor trolley recorded to the effect that at the time of the accident, the tractor trolley turned towards the petrol pump slip roadside while the motorcycle came turned towards the petrol pump slip roadside whi turned towards the petrol pump slip roadside whi from the opposite side. The driver of the alleged tractor trolley was driving from the opposite side. The driver of the alleged tractor trolley was driving from the opposite side. The driver of the alleged tractor trolley was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thus resulting in an accident as a the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thus resulting in the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thus resulting in result whereof, the motorcyclist fell on the road and received serious the motorcyclist fell on the road and received serious ies. The motorcyclist disclosed his name as Baljit Singh and the ies. The motorcyclist disclosed his name as Balj injuries. The motorcyclist disclosed his name as Balj registration number of the motorcycle was PB-23F registration number of the motorcycle was PB 23F-8092. 3. stated that the tractor was being driven in a rash As the witness stated that the tractor was being driven in a rash As the and negligent manner by the driver-Supinder Singh (respondent No. and negligent manner by the driver Supinder Singh (respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
herein), hence, the FIR in question was registered. herein), hence, the FIR in question was registered. herein), hence, the FIR in question was registered. 4. On conclusion of the investigation, the final report was filed. On conclusion of the investigation, the final report was filed. On conclusion of the investigation, the final report was filed. After compliance with the statutory formalities, evidence of the respective After compliance with the statutory formalities, evidence of the respective After compliance with the statutory formalities, evidence of the respective parties was recorded. parties was recorded. 5. The parties advanced arguments and on consideration The parties advanced arguments and on consideration thereof, the Judicial Magistrate First Class , Chandigarh discharged the respondent Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh discharged the respondent accused in the said case after recording a finding that the place of accused in the said case after recording No.2-accused in the said case after recording accident was a slip road and that the accident occurred due to negligence of accident was a slip road and that the accident occurred due to negligence of accident was a slip road and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who who had been negligent in driving the motorcycle driving the motorcycle since it was he who was coming oming from the opposite side of the tractor and was from the opposite side of the tractor and was riding on the wrong side. Besides, the witnesses also e wrong side. Besides, the witnesses also testified testified to the effect that they had only seen the driver of the tractor from behind wearing a parna. had only seen the driver of the tractor from behind wearing a had only seen the driver of the tractor from behind wearing a Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused Accordingly, the benefit was given to the accused, after recording a finding of rash and negligent driving a finding that there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving by the accused. 6. The operative part of the impugned The operative part of the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2017, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 3 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh Class, Chandigarh, reads thus:-
Legal Reasoning
“12. After hearing both the learned counsels at length and after “12. After hearing both the learned counsels at length and after “12. After hearing both the learned counsels at length and after careful perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as careful perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as careful perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the accused, I am of the considered opinion that in the by the accused, I am of the considered opinion that in the by the accused, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case accused has been charge-sheeted under section present case accused has been charge present case accused has been charge 279 IPC and 304-A of IPC. As per 279 IPC Section 279 of IPC requires two essentials (a). Driving of a vehicle and (b). Such driving two essentials (a). Driving of a vehicle and (b). Such driving two essentials (a). Driving of a vehicle and (b). Such driving must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. AS per likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. AS per likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. AS per f IPC following essential ingredients I. Death of Section 304-A of IPC following essential ingredients I. Death of Section 304 a person, II. Death was caused by accused during any rash or a person, II. Death was caused by accused during any rash or a person, II. Death was caused by accused during any rash or negligence act, III. Act does not amount to culpable homicide. negligence act, III. Act does not amount to culpable homicide. negligence act, III. Act does not amount to culpable homicide. And to prove negligence under Criminal Law, the prosecution And to prove negligence under Criminal Law, the prosecution And to prove negligence under Criminal Law, the prosecution stence of duty, II. A breach of the duty must prove: I. The existence of duty, II. A breach of the duty must prove: I. The exi causing death, III. The breach of the duty must be characterized causing death, III. The breach of the duty must be characterized causing death, III. The breach of the duty must be characterized as gross negligence. To constitute an offence under Section 279 as gross negligence. To constitute an offence under Section 279 as gross negligence. To constitute an offence under Section 279 A IPC proof of criminal rashness or criminal or Section 304-A IPC proof of criminal rashness or criminal or Section 304 hey must be proved that rash or negligence is essential. They must be proved that rash or negligence is essential. T negligent act of the accused was the approximate cause of negligent act of the accused was the approximate cause of negligent act of the accused was the approximate cause of death. In the present case as far as the identity is concerned i.e. death. In the present case as far as the identity is concerned i.e. death. In the present case as far as the identity is concerned i.e. duly proved and it is also proved that it was the accused who duly proved and it is also proved that it was the accused who duly proved and it is also proved that it was the accused who was driving his tractor trolley on the spot, but now the next was driving his tractor trolley on t was driving his tractor trolley on t question that arise for consideration is whether the accused was question that arise for consideration is whether the accused was question that arise for consideration is whether the accused was negligent in his driving and he was driving rashly. When we see negligent in his driving and he was driving rashly. When we see negligent in his driving and he was driving rashly. When we see the evidence in totality it come out that accused was not driving the evidence in totality it come out that accused was not driving the evidence in totality it come out that accused was not driving rashly and negligently. PW-1 Shamim rashly and negligently. PW 1 Shamim who is an eye witness to the accident as per prosecution story has deposed in his cross- the accident as per prosecution story has deposed in his cross the accident as per prosecution story has deposed in his cross examination that it is correct that this is a one way traffic where examination that it is correct that this is a one way traffic where examination that it is correct that this is a one way traffic where accident occurred. It is correct that tractor was coming from accident occurred. It is correct that tractor was coming from accident occurred. It is correct that tractor was coming from the right side when it turned from its chowk. It is further correct the right side when it turned from it the right side when it turned from it that when this tractor turned to the slip road the motorcycle was that when this tractor turned to the slip road the motorcycle was that when this tractor turned to the slip road the motorcycle was coming from the front side. It is also correct that after turning coming from the front side. It is also correct that after turning coming from the front side. It is also correct that after turning SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 4 to the slip road tractor was on its correct side and the to the slip road tractor was on its correct side and the to the slip road tractor was on its correct side and the motorcycle was coming from opposite side. This witness when motorcycle was coming from opposite motorcycle was coming from opposite examination before the court of learned Sh. came up for cross-examination before the court of learned Sh. came up for cross S.K. Aggarwal, Motor Accident Ciaim Tribunal, Chandigarh S.K. Aggarwal, Motor Accident Ciaim Tribunal, Chandigarh S.K. Aggarwal, Motor Accident Ciaim Tribunal, Chandigarh has deposed that the motorcycle driver was coming from the has deposed that the motorcycle driver was coming from the has deposed that the motorcycle driver was coming from the side of petrol pump which is a wrong side for joining the main side of petrol pump which is a wrong side for joining side of petrol pump which is a wrong side for joining He deposed that he cannot tell the registration number of road. He deposed that he cannot tell the registration number of road. motorcycle and tractor and also cannot identify the accused. He motorcycle and tractor and also cannot identify the accused. motorcycle and tractor and also cannot identify the accused. also deposed that the tractor was coming on slow speed to come also deposed that the tractor was coming on slow speed to come also deposed that the tractor was coming on slow speed to come to join the slip road and the motorcycle driver was at the high to join the slip road and the motorcycle driver was at t to join the slip road and the motorcycle driver was at t speed. Investigating officer of this case also stated in his cross- speed. Investigating officer of this case also stated in his cross speed. Investigating officer of this case also stated in his cross examination that motorcycle driver was coming from the side of examination that motorcycle driver was coming from the side of examination that motorcycle driver was coming from the side of petrol pump and the place of occurrence was a slip road. In petrol pump and the place of occurrence was a slip road. In petrol pump and the place of occurrence was a slip road. In view of the above said discussion, it can be said that the case view of the above said discussion, it can be said that the view of the above said discussion, it can be said that the against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. As per cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence the case As per cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence the case As per cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence the case against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Here the word used is must and not may and this word doubts. Here the word used is must and not may and this word doubts. Here the word used is must and not may and this word it can be said that prosecution in the rules out probability. So, it can be said that prosecution in the rules o present case has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt present case has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt present case has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was driving rashly and negligently that it was the accused who was driving rashly and negligently that it was the accused who was driving rashly and negligently and caused the death of Baljit Singh. Hence, accused is hereby and caused the death of Baljit Singh and caused the death of Baljit Singh or acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. entitled for acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. entitled f 13. Hence, in view of above discussion, accused is hereby 13. Hence, in view of above discussion, accused is hereby 13. Hence, in view of above discussion, accused is hereby acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged, after awaiting the result of appeal/revision, if any discharged, after awaiting the result of discharged, after awaiting the result of or if no appeal/revision is preferred after the expiry of the time or if no appeal/revision is preferred after the expiry of the time or if no appeal/revision is preferred after the expiry of the time so prescribed for the filing of such appeal or revision. Accused so prescribed for the filing of such appeal or revision. Accused so prescribed for the filing of such appeal or revision. Accused is directed to furnish bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the is directed to furnish bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the is directed to furnish bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs.12,000/- with one surety i sum of Rs.12,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Case
Decision
property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after the expiry of property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after the expiry of property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after the expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal/revision etc. File be period of limitation for filing appeal/revision etc. File be period of limitation for filing appeal/revision etc. File be SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR consigned to the record room. consigned to the record room. 5 (emphasis supplied)” 7. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred Aggrieved thereof , an appeal was preferred to the Court of Sessions, Chandigarh and after hearing the respective parties Sessions, Chandigarh and hearing the respective parties, the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh , Chandigarh, was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. The the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. The the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. The operative part thereof reads hereof reads thus:- “14.Apparently, there is no other eye witness of the accident in “14.Apparently, there is no other eye witness of the accident in “14.Apparently, there is no other eye witness of the accident in 1 complainant Shamim, examined by the question except PW-1 complainant Shamim, examined by the question except PW prosecution in the course of trial who stated that on 20.9.2013 prosecution in the course of trial who stated that on 20.9.2013 prosecution in the course of trial who stated that on 20.9.2013 at about 7.45 a.m., he was coming, on his vehicle and he at about 7.45 a.m., he was coming, on his vehicle and he at about 7.45 a.m., he was coming, on his vehicle and he d near Petrol Pump, Sector 56 and turned towards slip reached near Petrol Pump, Sector 56 and turned towards slip reache trolley also turned towards petrol road, at that time, one tractor-trolley also turned towards petrol road, at that time, one tractor pump slip road side and he saw one motorcyclist was also pump slip road side and he saw one motorcyclist was also pump slip road side and he saw one motorcyclist was also coming from the opposite side and the driver of tractor-trolley coming from the opposite side and the driver of tractor coming from the opposite side and the driver of tractor the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, caused while driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, caused while driving accident with the motorcyclist, due to which he fell on the road accident with the motorcyclist, due to which he fell on the road accident with the motorcyclist, due to which he fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. But, if his testimony is closely and sustained serious injuries. But, if his testimony is closely and sustained serious injuries. But, if his testimony is closely scrutinized, he had admitted that he saw the driver of the scrutinized, he had admitted that he saw the driver of the scrutinized, he had admitted that he saw the driver of the trolley in question from back side and offending tractor-trolley in question from back side and offending tractor therefore had no occasion to see as to who was driving the therefore had no occasion to see as to who was driving the therefore had no occasion to see as to who was driving the trolley at the time of accident in question, nor for that tractor-trolley at the time of accident in question, nor for that tractor matter, he could have noticed the age, features and other matter, he could have noticed the age, features and other matter, he could have noticed the age, features and other identification marks of the driver of the offending vehicle. identification marks of the driver identification marks of the driver Moreover, in his police statement Ex P-1 also, neither the name Moreover, in his police statement Ex P Moreover, in his police statement Ex P of accused nor his particulars i.e. age, appearance, features etc of accused nor his particulars i.e. age, appearance, features etc of accused nor his particulars i.e. age, appearance, features etc find reflected forfacilitating identification of the accused in the find reflected forfacilitating identification of the accused in the find reflected forfacilitating identification of the accused in the be that as per case of the course of investigation. It may be that as per case of the course of investigation. It may prosecution and also as deposed by complainant PW-1 Shamim, prosecution and also as deposed by complainant PW prosecution and also as deposed by complainant PW the accused on 28.09.2013 was apprehended by the police at his the accused on 28.09.2013 was apprehended by the police at his the accused on 28.09.2013 was apprehended by the police at his identification, when personal searchmemo Ex P-3 was identification, when personal sear identification, when personal sear SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 6 prepared, which was attested by the complainant. However, no prepared, which was attested by the complainant. Howe prepared, which was attested by the complainant. Howe test identification parade had been got conducted by the test identification parade had been got test identification parade had been got Investigating officer for the reasons best known. As has been Investigating officer for the reasons best kno Investigating officer for the reasons best kno noticed above, the complainant had no opportunity to observe noticed above, the complainant had no opportunity to observe noticed above, the complainant had no opportunity to observe the driver of the offending vehicle, the apprehension of the the driver of the offending vehicle, the apprehension of the the driver of the offending vehicle, the apprehension of the at the identification of the complainant was not accused at the identification of the complainant was not accused possible, nor for that matter, the identification of the accused in possible, nor for that matter, the identification of the accused in possible, nor for that matter, the identification of the accused in the course of trial by the complainant could help the case of the the course of trial by the complainant could help the case of the the course of trial by the complainant could help the case of the prosecution. Except for the testimony of complainant PW-1 prosecution. Except for the testimony of complainant PW prosecution. Except for the testimony of complainant PW is no other witness examined by the prosecution Shamim, there is no other witness examined by the prosecution Shamim, there for connecting the accused as driver of the offending tractor- for connecting the accused as driver of the offending tractor for connecting the accused as driver of the offending tractor trolley of the accident in question. Though, there is medical trolley of the accident in question. Though, there is medical trolley of the accident in question. Though, there is medical 13 Dr. Sukhjeet Singh in the shape of evidence of PW-13 Dr. Sukhjeet Singh in the shape of evidence of PW x PW13/B, which shows that postmortem examination report Ex PW13/B, which shows that postmortem examination report E the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the roadside the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the roadside the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the roadside accident, but on that basis it cannot be said that the accident in accident, but on that basis it cannot be said that the accident in accident, but on that basis it cannot be said that the accident in had been caused by the accused. question had been caused by the accused. question 15. Though, on behalf of the prosecution, PW-6 SI Amrao 15. Though, on behalf of the prosecution, PW 15. Though, on behalf of the prosecution, PW , Investigating Officer of the case in hand and PW- Singh, Investigating Officer of the case in hand and PW Singh C.Tarlochan Singh, recovery witness, were examined in order 3C.Tarlochan Singh, recovery witness, were examined in order C.Tarlochan Singh, recovery witness, were examined in order to depose that after recording of the FIR on the statement of the to depose that after recording of the FIR on the statement of the to depose that after recording of the FIR on the statement of the complainant Shamim, they along with the complainant had complainant Shamim, they along with the complainant had complainant Shamim, they along with the complainant had accident and took in possession accidental witnessed the spot of accident and took in possession accidental witnessed the spot of motorcycle, bumper bearing registration number of tractor- motorcycle, bumper bearing registration number of tractor motorcycle, bumper bearing registration number of tractor 2, which was attested by the trolley vide recovery memo Ex P-2, which was attested by the trolley vide recovery memo Ex P complainant and from the dickey of the motorcycle, registration complainant and from the dickey of the motorcycle, registration complainant and from the dickey of the motorcycle, registration e in the name of Baljeet Singh was certificate and driving license in the name of Baljeet Singh was certificate and driving licens taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex PW3/A, which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex PW3/A, which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex PW3/A, which was also attested by the complainant, rough site plan of place of also attested by the complainant, rough site plan of place of also attested by the complainant, rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex PW6/3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer occurrence Ex PW6/3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer occurrence Ex PW6/3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the photographer PW-4 C. Harjinder and the photographer PW 4 C. Harjinder Singh clicked the photographs of accidental vehicles Ex PW4/1 to Ex PW4/8, the photographs of accidental vehicles Ex PW4/1 to Ex PW4/8, the photographs of accidental vehicles Ex PW4/1 to Ex PW4/8, the offending offending trolley without bumper was tractor-trolley without bumper was tractor taken taken in in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 7 4 possession vide memo Ex P-4 possession vide memo Ex P in in the presence of the presence of the the complainant, the driving license of accused and R.C. of complainant, the driving license of accused and R.C. of complainant, the driving license of accused and R.C. of trolley were also taken in possession vide offending tractor-trolley were also taken in possession vide offending tract 5, which was attested by the complainant. The memo Ex P-5, which was attested by the complainant. The memo Ex P 2 HC Satya Parkash mechanically examined the mechanic PW-2 HC Satya Parkash mechanically examined the mechanic PW accidental vehicles vide his report Ex PW2/A and verification of accidental vehicles vide his report Ex PW2/A and verification of accidental vehicles vide his report Ex PW2/A and verification of g license of accused as well as R.C. of both vehicles and driving license of accused as well as R.C. of both vehicles and drivin deceased was done vide request Ex PW6/6 to Ex PW6/9. deceased was done vide request Ex PW6/6 to Ex PW6/9. deceased was done vide request Ex PW6/6 to Ex PW6/9. Though, prosecution could be said to have been in a position to Though, prosecution could be said to have been in a position to Though, prosecution could be said to have been in a position to prove that the accident in question had taken place with tractor- prove that the accident in question had taken place with tractor prove that the accident in question had taken place with tractor trolley bearing registration no.PB-11 trolley bearing registration no.PB 11-F-1553 i.e. the identity of the vehicles and ownership of the vehicles involved in the the vehicles and ownership of the vehicles involved in the the vehicles and ownership of the vehicles involved in the accident in question, but on the basis of said evidence, it cannot accident in question, but on the basis of said evidence, it cannot accident in question, but on the basis of said evidence, it cannot be said with certainty as to who was driving the offending be said with certainty as to who was driving the offending be said with certainty as to who was driving the offending trolley at the time of accident. tractor-trolley at the time of accident. tractor ced with this eventuality, I would like to take up the 16. Faced with this eventuality, I would like to take up the 16. Fa argument advanced on behalf of the prosecution that the argument advanced on behalf of the prosecution that the argument advanced on behalf of the prosecution that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent accident in question took place due to rash and negligent accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley bearing registration no. PB driving of tractor trolley bearing registration no. PB-11-F- absence of establishing the identity 1553. It may be that in the absence of establishing the identity 1553. It may be that in the of the driver of the offending vehicle, the deciding of this of the driver of the offending vehicle, the deciding of this of the driver of the offending vehicle, the deciding of this question is hardly of any significance. It may be that as per question is hardly of any significance. It may be that as per question is hardly of any significance. It may be that as per 1 Shamim that accident in question took place evidence of PW-1 Shamim that accident in question took place evidence of PW due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley, which hit due to rash and negligent driving due to rash and negligent driving the motorcyclist due to which he sustained injuries, who the motorcyclist due to which he sustained injuries, who the motorcyclist due to which he sustained injuries, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. But a subsequently succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. But a subsequently succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. But a close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and the close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and the close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral evidence deposed by PW-1 complainant oral evidence deposed by PW 1 complainant Shamim, it is trolley was being driven, on the apparent that the tractor-trolley was being driven, on the apparent that the tractor correct side of the road and took a turn to the slip road and he correct side of the road and took a turn to the slip road and he correct side of the road and took a turn to the slip road and he was still negotiating the said turn from slip road, when the was still negotiating the said turn from slip road, when the was still negotiating the said turn from slip road, when the accident in question took place. Therefore, the tractor-trolley accident in question took place. Therefore, the tractor accident in question took place. Therefore, the tractor cannot be said to be at fast speed. It is also apparent that the cannot be said to be at fast speed. It is also apparent that the cannot be said to be at fast speed. It is also apparent that the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 8 motorcyclist was coming on the wrong side from the petrol motorcyclist was coming on the wrong side from the petrol motorcyclist was coming on the wrong side from the petrol pump situated on the slip road of Sector 56, Chandigarh as pump situated on the slip road of Sector 56, Chandigarh as pump situated on the slip road of Sector 56, Chandigarh as admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. The admitted by the complainant in his cross admitted by the complainant in his cross accident and the manner of accident is indicative of the place of accident and the manner of accident is indicative of the place of trolley still being in the process of fact that driver of the tractor-trolley still being in the process of fact that driver of the tractor negotiating the turn on the slip road, could not have anticipated negotiating the turn on the slip road, could not have anticipated negotiating the turn on the slip road, could not have anticipated or observed the coming of the motorcycle from the wrong side or observed the coming of the motorcycle from the wrong side or observed the coming of the motorcycle from the wrong side as the tractor trolley had not yet completely negotiated the turn s the tractor-trolley had not yet completely negotiated the turn and was not at a straight road. Therefore, even by taking due and was not at a straight road. Therefore, even by taking due and was not at a straight road. Therefore, even by taking due care and caution, the driver of the tractor-trolley could not have care and caution, the driver of the tractor care and caution, the driver of the tractor avoided the accident in question and the same apparently had avoided the accident in question and the same apparently had avoided the accident in question and the same apparently had aken place due taken place due aken place due to rash and negligent driving of to rash and negligent driving of to rash and negligent driving of the the the motorcyclist himself. The said fact simply raises suspicion motorcyclist himself. The said fact simply raises suspicion motorcyclist himself. The said fact simply raises suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused and the offending regarding the involvement of the accused and the offending regarding the involvement of the accused and the offending vehicle in question for the accident in question. Law on this vehicle in question for the accident in question. Law on this vehicle in question for the accident in question. Law on this hat suspicion however strong can never be point is well settled that suspicion however strong can never be point is well settled t taken the place of proof regarding the actual involvement of the taken the place of proof regarding the actual involvement of the taken the place of proof regarding the actual involvement of the offending vehicle in question and the identity of the accused as offending vehicle in question and the identity of the accused as offending vehicle in question and the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. aforesaid discussion, the prosecution failed to 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution failed to 17. In view of the prove beyond doubt its case against accused and the accused prove beyond doubt its case against accused and the accused prove beyond doubt its case against accused and the accused has been rightly extended benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the has been rightly extended benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the has been rightly extended benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial er and is affirmed and the appeal Magistrate is in perfect order and is affirmed and the appeal Magistrate is in perfect ord being without merit is ordered to be dismissed.” being without merit is ordered to be dismissed.” being without merit is ordered to be dismissed.” 8. 9. Still aggrieved, the instant revision Still aggrieved, revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner committed an error in extending the vehemently contended that the Courts committed an error in extending the vehemently contended that the Courts accused. The very fact that the benefit of doubt to the respondent No.2-accused. The very fact that the benefit of doubt to the respondent No.2 accident in question had taken place and resulted accident in question had taken place and resulted in the death of deceased- SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 9 Baljit Singh, it clearly establishes that there was negligence on the par that there was negligence on the part of accused. He further contends that the respondent- the respondent No.2-accused. He further contends that the respondent the respondent No.2 did not discharge his duty towards other travelers in being careful did not discharge his duty towards other accused did not discharge his duty towards other driving the tractor trolley and took a sharp turn, thus resulting in the driving the tractor trolley and took a sharp turn while driving the tractor trolley and took a sharp turn rther contends that the prosecution witness- incident in question. He further contends that the prosecution witness incident in question. He fu relevant point of time specifically deposed about the PW1/Sameem had at a relevant point of time specifically deposed about the PW1/Sameem had at tractor being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, the acquittal of tractor being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, the acquittal of tractor being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, the acquittal of respondent No.2-accused was incorrect. respondent No.2 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh Learned Addition al Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh, on submits that there is a dispute with respect to identity which the other hand, submits that there is a dispute with respect to identity which submits that there is a dispute with respect to identity which has to be recorded by the Court, however, no such issue arose during the has to be recorded by the Court, however, no such issue arose during the has to be recorded by the Court, however, no such issue arose during the trial. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have I have heard learned counsel for the respectiv I have heard learned counsel for the respectiv gone through the documents appended along with the present petition, gone through the documents appended along with the present petition gone through the documents appended along with the present petition including the judgments passed by both the Courts below. including the judgments passed by both the Courts below. including the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 12. It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that the eye-witness It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that had specifically deposed that the deceased-Baljit Singh had specifically deposed that the Baljit Singh had been driving the from the side of the petrol pump motorcycle on the wrong side and entered from the side of the petrol pump motorcycle on the wrong side and to the slip road so as to join the main road. The witness accepted in the to the slip road so as to join the main road. The on to the slip road so as to join the main road. The cross-examination and examination and it was duly recorded by the trial Court by the trial Court to the effect the tractor was being driven at a slow speed so as to enter into the slip the tractor was being driven at a slow speed so as to that the tractor was being driven at a slow speed so as to road, whereas the motorcycle whereas the motorcycle rider was coming was coming from the wrong side at a fast speed so as to enter into enter into the main traffic lane. main traffic lane. The said testimony remains . Thus, the prime burden of the prosecution to establish rash and unshattered. Thus, the prime burden of the prosecution to establish rash and . Thus, the prime burden of the prosecution to establish rash and negligent driving by accused has not been satisfactorily discharged. Law negligent driving by accused has not been satisfactorily discharged. Law negligent driving by accused has not been satisfactorily discharged. Law SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 10 does not punish the driver for occurrence of an accident. For penal does not punish the driver for occurrence of an accident. For penal does not punish the driver for occurrence of an accident. For penal consequences to follow, rashness and negligence of the driver being charged consequences to follow, rashness and negligence o consequences to follow, rashness and negligence o of an offence too needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of an offence too needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of an offence too needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of care and duty to be discharged by the charged of care and duty to be discharged by the charged driver is that of a reasonable person. Mere sufferance of a greater loss or harm is not the basis reasonable person. Mere sufferance of a greater loss or harm is not the basis reasonable person. Mere sufferance of a greater loss or harm is not the basis doning the lapse or fastening criminal liability. doning the lapse or fastening criminal liability for condoning the lapse or fastening criminal liability 13. The shortcomings in the investigation on the part of the The shortcomings in the investigation on the part of the The shortcomings in the investigation on the part of the not join any employee of the Investigating Officer to the effect that he did not join any employee of the Investigating Officer to the effect that he petrol pump during during the investigation, to determine the role of the to determine the role of the deceased- Baljit Singh, was also noticed by the Court. Further, the deceased Baljit Singh, was also noticed . Further, the deceased-Baljit Singh was also not proved to be holding any valid driving licence as Singh was also not to be holding any valid driving licence as his photograph was licence that had been produced in was not affixed on the driving licence that had been produced in evidence. 14. It was in the said circumstances that It was that a finding was recorded by be conclusively held that the respondent No.2- the Court that it could not be conclusively held that the respondent No.2 the Court that it c accused was also rash and negligent in taking a turn towards the slip road accused was also rash and negligent in taking a turn towards the slip road accused was also rash and negligent in taking a turn towards the slip road towards the main road side. Hence, the order of ac towards the main road side. Hence, the order of acquittal was passed. The said findings stand stand affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who additionally recorded that apart from PW recorded that apart from PW-1/Sameem, there 1/Sameem, there was no other eye- witness and that the testimony of the said witness also suffers from witness and that the testimony of the said witness also suffers from witness and that the testimony of the said witness also suffers from mode and manner in which the accident in contradictions with respect to the mode and manner in which the accident in contradictions with r question took place. It was reiterated that undisputedly question took place. It was that undisputedly, the deceased-Baljit Singh, was himself on the wrong side of the road and was driving the vehicle himself on the wrong side of the road and was driving the vehicle on the wrong side. The driving license purport on the wrong side. The driving licen purported to be in the name of deceased-Baljit Singh Baljit Singh, which was taken in possession vide which was taken in possession vide recovery memo SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 CRR-904-2019 (O&M) CRR 11 also did not have any photograph of the deceased-Baljit Singh. also did not have any photograph of Ex PW3/A, also did not have any photograph of 15. Going further, even if the finding recorded by the Court that the Going further, even if the finding recorded by the Court that the Going further, even if the finding recorded by the Court that the identity of the driver of the tractor was not conclusively established, is driver of the tractor was not conclusively established, is ignored for the time being, the finding of fact fact that has been undisputedly recorded by both the Courts is that the motorcycle itself was being drive recorded by both the Courts motorcycle itself was being driven on the wrong side of the road. There is no conclusive evidence the wrong side of the road. There i conclusive evidence to dislodge or . dispel the same. 16. While sitting on the revisional jurisdiction, this Court While s the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not engage in microscopic examination of the evidence adduced before the microscopic re-examination of the evidence adduced before the Court and would not ordinarily would not ordinarily supplant its own probabilitie plant its own probabilities for the of the Courts below. findings of the Courts below. 17. I find that the view taken by both the Courts I find that th e view taken by both the Courts cannot be said to be improper, illegal improper, illegal, perverse or unsustainable on sustainable on a plain reading of the evidence. Consequently , finding no merit, the present revision petition is . Consequently, finding no merit, the present revision petition is dismissed and the judgments passed by both the Courts are affirmed. and the judgments passed by both the Courts are affirmed. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 13.11.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document