Ziledar v. State of Haryana

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Mahabir Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. A.N.JINDAL, J: ***** Ziledar accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') was prosecuted for causing the death of Jagjit @ Kola on account of the accident caused by him, therefore, the trial Court vide judgment dated 09.08.2000 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. Sukhwinder Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') in his statement dated 02.11.1994, made before ASI Mahender Lal disclosed that he runs a general provision store. On the occasion of Diwali, he had come to Cheeka in order to purchase some articles. His brother-in-law Jagjit @ Kola was residing nearby village Cheeka, therefore, he had gone to see him. When he alongwith his brother- in-law, while talking with each other, was coming on the Kaithal Road Main Chowk Cheeka, at about 12:00 noon, the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HR-02A-0767 rashly and negligently and without Criminal Revision No.1508 of 2005 2 blowing horn, came from the back side, struck against Jagjit Singh @ Kola due to which he died on the spot. On the aforesaid statement, made by the complainant, ASI Mahender Lal sent ruqa to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jagjit Singh @ Kola and recorded the statements of witnesses. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged 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 Dr.Jasmer Singh (PW1), Karam Chand (PW2), Ravinder Kumar (PW3), Dharampal (PW4), ASI Mahender Lal (PW5), Sanjeev Kumar (PW6), Ram Kumar (PW7), complainant Sukhwinder Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. In defence, he examined Balwant Singh (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. It was first contended that there was no legal and valid evidence and the Appellate Court has relied upon inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The material witness Balwant Singh was not produced by the prosecution but appeared as defence witness and supported the defence version. According to him, no accident had taken place. Counsel has further urged that no sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused. Having considered the contentions, the Criminal Revision No.1508 of 2005 3 same lack any merit. Complainant Sukhwinder Singh (PW8) while appearing in the witness box has given complete description of the occurrence and duly identified the accused. The investigator has also proved the complete investigation. The death of Jagjit Singh @ Kola has been duly proved by Dr.Jasmer Singh (PW1). No doubt, Balwant Singh, a prosecution witness, was given up as won over but he appeared as a defence witness. Since he was given up as won over, therefore, no reliance could be placed on his such testimony particularly when there is other sufficient evidence on the record to prove the occurrence. The identity of the accused has been duly established not only by complainant Sukhwinder Singh (PW8) but also Sanjeev Kumar (PW6), owner of the offending truck. He has categorically stated in the examination-in-chief that the accused was employed with him as driver on the date of accident. The argument of the counsel, that the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court is of no consequence in the absence of any test identification parade, in case, immediately after the accident, the accused had come to the complainant and disclosed his name as Ziledar. The accident took place during day time, therefore, the witness could well identify him when he had come after causing the accident. It was only the accused who got the vehicle released on supurdari on 11.11.1997, thus, no iota or doubt remains in the mind of the Court to hold that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle. As regards the testimony of Sanjeev Kumar (owner of the vehicle) though he may have resiled qua other facts but his testimony to the extent that he was the owner of the vehicle stands corroborated by Form No.47 which is placed on record, indicating that he was the owner and his Criminal Revision No.1508 of 2005 4 testimony could be accepted to the extent that he was the owner and the accused was the driver with him on the day of occurrence. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of both the Courts whereby the accused has been indicted 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, infirmity or manifest error apparent on the face of record in the judgment which may cause serious prejudice to the accused but nothing such 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, the occurrence is of the year1994. The accused has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings for the last sixteen years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone two months and three days of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to take a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to nine months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, for compliance.

28.10.2010 mamta-II (A.N.Jindal) Judge